Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 26: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:51, 26 August 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 25	August 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Salavati-Niasari

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

Nominated per WP:NACADEMIC, some relevant information will follow in the comment below. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a scholar in the field of chemistry / chemical engineering with excessive publication output (1084 items per Dimensions.ai, link requires login).

There is a retraction for image concerns. 36 articles by Salavati-Niasari received comments on PubPeer, typically for image and content concerns. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, none of these asserts notability. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not going to support this BLP until an explanation is available for the unusual GS citation record and the retractions Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe, I'd be curious what you make of what I found below in academic databases. This is definitely an odd situation outside the "norm" of already iffy measures of notability by citation metrics, but I just get more questions than answers as I dig. KoA (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that the subject has notability, albeit not verified by the references. If they have somehow falsified data (etc) and thus retracted papers, then that fact, if in sufficient volume, is likely to confer notability, also notoriety. This should be recorded in the very stubby article. Otherwise their papers appear at first sight to have sufficient citations themselves to qualify under WP:NACADEMIC. I note the comments in the link provided by the nom, and feel they may indicate 'lack of scientific rigour'. I leave this as a comment rather than a !vote because I do not feel able to reach a conclusion on this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to proceed with deletion at this time. One retraction is quite weak to imply notability / notoriety of the subject, and references to their PubPeer record are contestable through WP:NOR.

If any significant number of retractions arrives in the future, then we will have a firm reason to restore the page. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An academic scandal (falsified data, plagiarism, etc.) only contributes to notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word if that scandal has been covered by reliable sources. Think The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retraction Watch, the news sections of Science and Nature, and other sources of that type. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing a red flag with the citation counts here too and tried to do some poking around on more reliable databases like Scopus or Web of Science. At their peak, they somehow put out over 100 papers in a single year. In Scopus you can remove self-citations by the author and their co-authors, and this often removes about 1000 citations per year. There still appears to be citations that fall outside this category, but it does play a part.

What's a bigger red flag for me is that they are last/corresponding author on 84% of papers, but first author only on 16% of papers checking Web of Science (apparently never a regular co-author/contributor). Maybe it's an irregular power structure thing at their university, but claiming corresponding editor on that many papers seems to suggest they are getting credit for work they didn't directly do beyond a typical corresponding author situation. At least in this case, I would say the citation metrics part of WP:NACADEMIC is not reliable standalone for notability, so I'd be inclined to say delete considering everything else I've seen here. KoA (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few years there has been a vast increase in citation gaming, see Research paper mill, which tends to bamboozle inexperienced editors. If in doubt Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. When there appears to be legitimate reason to call into question the subject's citation record, I think we must avoid reliance on WP:PROF#C1 as a notability criterion, but we have nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with others, his citation record does not look right. If there was cross-validation by awards from his peers then I would be OK with the page. If such a high citation record was an accurate reflection then there would be many. The lack says everything to me. So delete as there are too many unresolved questions, as others say above. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa women's national under-18 softball team

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

No independent, third party coverage uncovered for this subject to meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG. The only sources in the article now are primary. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and South Africa. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wiyh prejudice. Usual OR/unreliable sourced crud from Laura Hale. SerialNumber54129 23:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Super Mystery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Survival

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

I have not been able to find sources for NBOOK. I have searched for sources using Google, Google Scholar, Google News, ProQuest, JSTOR, and Newspaper Archive. Newspaper.com may provide additional insight, but I'm receiving errors. I would suggest redirecting to Super Mystery if notability cannot be established. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searched on Newspaper.com, no non-passing mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mystery (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Fails WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tryfle

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. No sign of notability. C F A 💬 23:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. C F A 💬 23:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - absolutely no indication of notabilty with no sources in the article and none to be found after searching. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this interview is as close to a good source as I could find, and that’s not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not particularly notable. The article could even be a BLP PROD in its current state. Garsh (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Super Mystery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Games (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys)

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

I have not been able to find sources for NBOOK. I have searched for sources using Google, Google Scholar, Google News, ProQuest, JSTOR, and Newspaper Archive. Newspaper.com may provide additional insight, but I'm receiving errors. I would suggest redirecting to Super Mystery if notability cannot be established. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searched on newspapers.com, no non passing mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mystery - I have not been able to find any sources or reviews in reliable sources, making it a failure of WP:NBOOK. The Super Mystery article contains links to many other books in the franchise that are similarly unsourced, which can hopefully be WP:BOLDly redirected as well after this discussion closes, rather than needing to go through an AFD for each one. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was attempted, but there did turn out to be several books in the series that were notable (ironically enough, the first two listed). PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ben Azura (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Super Mystery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Waves (novel)

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

I have not been able to find enough sources for NBOOK. I found one source that mentions Shock Waves but only in passing. I have completed a general Google search, as well as searches on Google Scholar, ProQuest, JSTOR, Newspaper Archive, and Google News. Newspaper.com may provide additional insight, but I'm receiving errors. I would suggest redirecting to Super Mystery if notability cannot be established. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searched on newspapers.com, got no reliable hits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mystery (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source I can find is this review^{Internet Archive} in the Times Recorder. The review is written by a student in grade 5 so may not be considered a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ben Azura (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Robot Wars robots. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Robot Wars robots

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unsourced and not a defining characteristic and oddly titled, as if those 'dirty foreigner robots' should be separated from those 'fine British robotfolk'. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe selective merge with List of Robot Wars robots in the sense of mentioning the foreign "nationality" of a robot in the respective series' list. It may be WP:INTERESTING, but definitively not enough for a stand-alone list. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on selective merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful content with List of Robot Wars robots Ben Azura (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Passions ran high in this discussion, as can be expected from such a loaded issue. I spent a fair amount of time trying to tease out the P&G-based arguments from the mere righteous indignation. A few !votes were discarded as irrelevant, mostly those that called for deletion based solely on the content being offensive; the article doesn't qualify as an "attack page".

A much larger number of participants expressed a view I found puzzling. Things like, "Delete unless we revert to revision so-and-so", or "Delete unless we rename it", or "Delete because it's a POV mess right now". To remind you, we are here to decide whether the topic justifies inclusion, not whether the current content or title are suitable. If the subject - under some title and with some content - should be kept, according to that participant, then this !vote should be counted as a Keep. Once we do that, the rough consensus to keep becomes a very clear consensus.

I am glad to see work on improving the content towards NPOV has already begun, and I trust a move discussion will proceed now that the AfD is closed, and settle on a more acceptable page title. Owen× ☎ 20:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

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

Delete: Article is based upon false premise that the perpatrators are "muslim" nor are there sufficient primary or secondary sources to base the assumption that they are motivated by their faith, nor do we have primary or secondary sources to even affirm the perpatrators faiths. The gangs mentioned throughout are not all even "asian" or therefore "muslim". The article would best be served being incorprated into the existing CSE in the United Kingdom page where there is a section on grooming. This article does nothing but indlude wild assertions and obfuscate valid information countering the lede and name. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, okay, so, here's the reason:

I'm putting this as delete mostly because, studies show that well, Muslims aren't over-represented in actual abuse statistics.

I don't really have anything to particularly say here over than, the WP:POV edits are disgusting and for me truly put a disgusting taste in my mouth, since one of my parents used to be Muslim, and no, not the Prawn cocktail flavor chips. Anyway...

Just like what Chaotic Emby mentioned, it would make it more neutral to add "moral panic" or at least "allegation(s)" in the title.

Anyway, thats my two-cents on the matter honestly. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 21:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has good sources and is well cited. Agree that maybe changing the name or merging would be appropriate but not deletion. There does appear to be some debate the use of the term "Asian grooming gangs". Article does have a section addressing both the terms Muslim grooming gang and Asian grooming gang. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% needs to be merged, the use of "muslim grooming gangs" as a dedicated article is WP:Reliable sources and undue weight given the particular obsession with the topic and ethnicitiy of perpatrators, despite the fact that a lot of perps in these cases are not muslim and are still listed in both the list and map. Problemativ through and throuh. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi TwinkleStarzz, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for making your first contribution. The page has been renamed after a WP:RM discussion which changed it from South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic. The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK. The first WP:PROD believed that the article tried to obfuscate or downplay Muslim/Asian grooming gangs hence why new material has been added to provide WP:NPOV. Given the sufficient WP:RS coverage this topic has received, I believe that the page can merit its own article without being merged into a subsection of the main Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom page. There is no implication in this article that perpetrators are motivated by their faith, and quotes are provided from Islamic community leaders to address this. If you believe that any wild assertions or obfuscation of valid information has been made, this can be discussed in the Talk page of the main article, however the article is well-sourced and meets WP:V. I do not believe that the censorship of controversial topics is the way forward. Thanks. --Kioj156 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled and disappointed by the selective nature in which some editors are choosing to interpret sources, the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe academic study writes: "The controversy related to GLCSE can be resolved through the availability of authoritative data on the identity of the oﬀenders. In order to argue for this we examined over 2,000 press reports on GLCSE prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this oﬀence. A regression analysis found that both the Muslim and the Pakistani proportions of the local population are powerful variables in explaining the level of GLCSE in an area. The proportion of the local population of Pakistani origin is more powerful in explaining the level of GLCSE than the Muslim proportion, suggesting that, irrespective of their names, most of the defendants are of Pakistani origin." It details a list of local authorities analysed in the study (in page 6) so supporting news articles have been provided to support its analysis. The names of other towns and cities has been provided as the HoL document makes the claim that there are 73 towns and cities affected.

I think that your revision of this edit here as NOR shows that your own idea of censorship is perhaps misguided. "The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK." The context already is clear from each individual article, as well as the CSE in the United Kingdom article that goes into grooming as an issue, having an entire article dedicated to "muslim grooming" rather than just, "grooming" is indeed rather odd. Given your edit history, not that I enjoy red herrings either, your do seem to have a certain penchant for this topic and perhapos a need to step back is needed. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. I am not @Celjski Grad. You may believe it to be odd, however this specific topic has been addressed by multiple political figures, Islamic community leaders and has even inspired far-right terrorist attacks. Kioj156 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my mistake! In any case, my point remains, based upon your edit history you have a certain penchant for this topic, and ethnicities in general, it is certainly odd to create a page dedicated to "muslim grooming" then include groups that are clearly not "muslim". While simultaneously ignoring the "grooming" section in the CSE article to focus entirely on the ethnicitiy of some of the alleged perpatrators. Padding out the exsiting articles about the cases, or the CSE page itself, would better serve without WP:Undue Weight. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TwinkleStarzz, that reversion came up as part of a patrol of new edits predicted to "very likely have problems" — I haven't edited the article before or since. I'd encourage you to read the first paragraph of WP:NOR to see why text such as "it does therefore did not give an accurate representation" is problematic, but since you've successfully navigated the AfD process with your very first edit this shouldn't be necessary. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, Sexuality and gender, Islam, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change the title. The sources on this topic are more focused on their alleged ethnicity than their supposed faith, it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Academic research—considered the WP:BESTSOURCES for Wikipedia, as the project favors academic coverage—indicates the framing of this appalling phenomenon as distinctively Muslim is likely the result of sensationlism and Orientalism (in Edward Said's sense), a moral panic whose sociological function is scapegoating, and a moral panic premised on 'folk devil' tropes. The article's premise—that the defining characteristic of the topic is association with Islam—violates the WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia does not exist to regurgitate moral panic or sensationalism. We should look to the best sources, and when peer-reviewed academic sources exist for a topic, those are the best ones and should guide our content. Notable information can be incorporated into other articles about CSE, as OP states. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By way of comment: while I see where some are coming from with suggesting that the article instead be kept and reverted to an earlier version before the addition of racist and Islamophobic dog whistling, I think this is a case where WP:TNT applies. Having this content in the article's history is so unhelpful for the project that it's better to start over. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The offending revisions could be deleted from public view. If the article is kept then that would be a reasonable thing to request. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:TNT. This is racist dog whistling without even an attempt at an WP:NPOV. I saw some suggestions to merge into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom on WP:NPOVN but much of this is unusable and reported with a straight face even as sourcing specifically talks about how this phrasing is racial dog-whistling. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working off this version, but a breakdown of the absolutely abysmal sourcing and abuse of sourcing.

(2) - a house of lords document. Should not be used as sourcing as it is WP:PRIMARY
(4), (5), (22) - Primary sourcing that explicitly explains that UK media has been racializing sex abuse as a dog whistle is used in lede as citation for it was later exacerbated by the Telford child sexual exploitation scandal and the Rochdale child sex abuse case.

Commenting that high-profile cases that took place over a number of years involving a high-number of victims resulted in the phenomenon gaining more attention is not a dog whistle. It provides contextual information as to why the association emerged. - Kioj156

(10) - A WP:PRIMARY source used to suggest widespread occurrence of muslim gangs.

(10) is an academic study, and there is nothing to suggest that either of the two authors are primary sources.- Kioj156

(9), (21) - Conservative politicians decrying cancel culture for not letting them discuss Muslim grooming gangs

This is included in the lede as it is the most recent commentary from political figures, however you will find that politicians across the political spectrum have made commentary on the ethnicity/religion of perpetrators further down in the article. The statement was by the former Prime Minister whilst he was in office.- Kioj156

(15), (16) - research specifically discussing reason why muslim grooming gangs is overpublicized and that as white people make up much of the UK, they make up much of the grooming and child sex exploitation abusers.

The UK is a majority-white country (83%) so it should be of no surprise if most crimes are committed white people, the commentary has been on the over representation of the Asian ethnicity. - Kioj156

(19) - I have no clue what Spiked-Online is but searching for islam or muslim on it shows significant islamaphobia. supposedly the wikipedia page for Spiked (magazine) indicates it got sued for Bosnian genocide of muslim denialism

Stuart Waiton, the author of the article, is a criminology and sociology academic and it would be better to address the content of his arguments rather than attacking anything else. If you do not believe his figures are correct, the figures he analyses can be found in page 26 of the Home Office report. - Kioj156

(25), (26) - written by Julie Bindel, mostly op-eds but stated as facts. Not sure why we are specifically emphasizing that white girls were abused, especially as I cannot find it in the sourcing. The wikipedia page for Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal indicates that it is a stereotype to suggest that only white girls were abused, when the abused children were diverse.

This is not stated as a fact, the Wikipedia entry reads for sources relating to (25), (26), (27) is: "According to feminist writer Julie Bindel, fears over "being accused of racism" had suppressed coverage and reporting of the growing number of grooming gangs operating across the country. Although "gangs" had been in operation since at least the 1990s, it was only until 2007 when The Sunday Times became the first broadsheet to publish an article on the phenomenon." It is to provide commentary on when the issue was first covered by a broadsheet publication, as well as who the publisher was. - Kioj156

No claim has been made that only "white girls were abused", this Wikipedia article also discusses the abuse of Sikh girls. In the case of Rotherham, the National Crime Agency found that "The vast majority of victims were white British girls aged 11 to 18" and "The NCA inquiry, the biggest of its kind in the UK, has identified 110 suspects, of whom 80% are of Pakistani heritage".- Kioj156

(46) - says nothing about muslims grooming gangs, simply states abusers were muslim.

(47) - report does not indicate ethnicity, or religion. Only that taxi drivers were abusers

(48), (49), (50), (51) - no specific writing of race or religion, just have muslim-ish names printed out.

actually sources 43-88 are just read outs of local crime reports. I stopped reading past 51 because of how lazy and useless this is.

(28), (84), (114) - The Sun is deprecated,

(28) is used to provide a claim by a Sikh charity that abuse began in the 1960s, and (84) is used to provide a name of a settlement. It is not used for analysis.

(114) - and we are using an opinion piece as analysis, one that caused significant outrage.

(114) is not used for analysis. It is used to provide a direct quotation of the specific words used by the Labour MP and the subsequent backlash she received. This line of thought also applies to the opinion pieces written by other politicians.

This is after 30 minutes of tearing through sourcing. Is there a way to have some neutral version of this article up? Maybe. Is child sex exploitation by desi men a worthy topic to consider? Including by considering criticism of it as racialized dog whistling? Yes. But as is, this article is entirely racist BUNK not even worth keeping a history of, and should be wiped from wikipedia.. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I keep looking through and tearing apart this article? Yeah. Not worth my time. Someone else can throw their lot at it if they want too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to deletion - Revert to this version [1], and rename article to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I prefer this option actually. I've reverted to last good version. There is probably a sex abuse issue in the UK desi community, and some research indicates it could be due to lack of tools and social support to Desi women. There is also probably a POV article when we uncritically misuse sourcing to allege every other UK desi guy is a sex abuser. I think we can start to rework sourcing from previous bad version eventually back into this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth incorprating into the CSE page under localised grooming, not having a standalone article that as you've correctly pointed out will be subject to rife POV edits and problems, keeping it all on one page where the subject can be discussed with full context is much more worth it than a singular article that we know will historically be problematic with certain editos - whether now or in the future. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert asap to the last good version[[2]]. WP is not a soapbox for moral panic mongering. Subsequently we can talk about WP:SIGCOV for the moral panic and the best title to present it in case it passes WP:N. –07:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Austronesier (talk)
Delete, per Hydrangeans' comments above, with particular regard to the academic source cited therein.[3] Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of moral panics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear case for WP:TNT. The problem with this page is that, as Hydrangeans has demonstrated, the encyclopaedic subject of this subject is framed quite differently, and as long as this article persists in this format and with this framing and page history, editors will be fighting a losing battle against a media-fuelled narrative of moral panic. That is to say, the existence of a page about a thing implies that the thing is itself a subject. It isn't. The subject is moral panic, racism, islamophobia and the persistence of media led narratives. This should probably be mentioned in appropriate articles (several of them, so no redirect makes sense - and a redirect is harmful). Although it should be mentioned in appropriate places, there is no case for an article itself, which would always look like a war zone. TNT is not enough. Needs C4. Maybe a nuke. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I was going to vote keep, until I saw what a POV mess this is. It needs so much work it might be better to scrap it and start from scratch. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has been derailed from the original topic by POV edits. Or at the very least revert to the last good version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1231313707 and additionaly revert the article name to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" or similar memphisto 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article asserts that the premise exists, not that it is alleged to exist. WP:POV article. Rankersbo (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is never going to be anything other than a honeypot for racists, regardless of the best intentions to frame it as an article about the "moral panic". In the end, it's an article about a far-right trope which was used in the recent riots to provoke violence against others. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that this revision shows the article's state at the time of nomination, which was after removal of most "moral panic" content. It has since been reverted to an earlier version. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Hydrangeans notes, mostly. This is offensive and almost worth a speedy as an attack page. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to deleting this content, but there is an article to be written here about a real cultural phenomenon. It's not about Muslim grooming gangs or paedophiles of South Asian origin: it's about journos misrepresenting patterns in crime. Source, source, source.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree. This is not it though. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this article to an earlier version. Thoughts about this version? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's badly mistitled.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently moved from the "moral panic" title by this spectacular clusterfuck of a RM - Talk:Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom supported by a massive three people, one of whom has previous for this type of thing. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these POV edits happened a few weeks after the initial article was made, without any watchful attention from the community... Its def on my watchlist now, and I plan to start adding back usable sourcing accordingly. FWIW, I think the POV edits stood for basically a week before this AfD was started and folks figured out what happened, so the process worked, technically. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its title alone is utterly problematic. It really needs to go, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by one of whom has previous for this type of thing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, though you might want to consider changing something you wrote below. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I asked. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed you wanted to know if I meant you. There's your answer. Now, about your false statement below... Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem then is that because this coverage came from "generally reliable" newspapers like The Times, there will inevitably be people who will argue that we have to present this "Muslim grooming gang" coverage as a mainstream perspective that should be presented as equally legitimate to the very critical academic coverage. This topic in my opinion is already briefly but adequately covered at Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it's worth noting that two currently-cited academic articles use the phrase "Muslim grooming gangs" in their titles. Based on that alone, I'd argue that the topic is notable. However, as others have mentioned, it might be worthwhile to move the page to something like 'Muslim grooming gangs moral panic in the UK' to indicate this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and well said, it was a frustrating topic to research with all the racist nonsense getting in the way. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade: "this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering". Indeed. This is what I'd hoped would be addressed with the proposed title of "Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" - to say that there is a notable topic here, but it is the discourse itself, not a specific group of people. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a phenomenon that needs an article. There is vast evidence of it and it is a major thing in the UK. It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith (nobody is saying, incidentally, that they were motivated by that faith). Denial of this is sticking one's head in the sand. However, as I said at the RM, renaming it to Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would be fine. But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stood was racist dogwhistling, and many of the sources cited (and originally misused) all either talk about how the media does ridiculous amounts of attention on the ethnicities especially to suggest brown male on white girl violence, that statistics suggest that vast majority of abusers in UK are still white and sources otherwise were often politically motivated, or that a lack of resources for brown desi girls caused issues with sexual assault.

I propose renaming it to Grooming gangs moral panic in the United Kingdom Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Do you have a source for that? That looks like a media narrative. Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford all fit that profile, but not the Camborne gang, nor the Glasgow one, nor whatever the heck you call this one [4], and countless more. Stats do not bear out the media narrative. There is no subject here, except the subject of media induced moral panic based on after the fact correlation of selected cases, and studied ignorance of the remainder. By having a page we lend credence to the false narrative. An encyclopaedic article needs to focus on the failings that got us here, and not perpetrate those same failings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a media narrative. So, now Wikipedia rejects media sources like the BBC which have always been held to be reliable? That's a new one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A previous piece of research from 2015 found that of 1,231 perpetrators of "group and gang-based child sexual exploitation", 42% were white, 14% were defined as Asian or Asian British and 17% black. BBC: [5]
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article." this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Incorporating it into the existing CSE article on Grooming is perfectly acceptable in my opinion, and others here that have commented. The exisiting individual articles on each case goes into more than enough detail and wouldn't serve as a hub for malicious POV edits like the original did. Not to mention that no one has created any articles on the various "white" grooming gang cases, only a certain type make the wiki - that itself is perhaps a problem. In any case, renaming it to a moral panic - which it is, is a secondary option to incorporating it. Having a standalone article would need to be consistently monitored to stop those POV racist edits and is perhaps more work than worth. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. As I said, it can be renamed to simple Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, or didn't you bother reading what I actually wrote before jumping to incorrect conclusions? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you say "It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith" when the article actually says that is false [6] [7]. When someone commenting on an article where the information is right in front of them actually states the opposite, it is unsurprising that the intellectually challenged who took part in the recent riots believe it as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. " That's not what I did. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Yup, that's exactly what you did! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, saying you're using language that racists use, doesn't mean that you are a racist. Nor did I ever accuse you of being a racist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read things more carefully! Try not to accuse *me* of anything in the meantime as you just did! TwinkleStarzz (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just responding to User:Sirfurboy's point above: the question was Do you have a source for that?, and the answer is yes: whether or not Necrothesp does, I do. It's in the academic source I linked above. To quote it exactly:

...Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation (CSE) identified to date, relative to the general population.

As always, the context is important. The title of that paper is Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat, which rather gives away its central thesis; it doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position. I invite you to read it in full here.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) I've reflected on this again and I really like Bluethricecreamman's wording, "moral panic". That's a pithy and laser accurate term for what we're dealing with here.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its what the article and title originally was before all the pov edits and the RM move. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't; it was "South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic". The panic was there, but the moral panic is, as far as I can see, all yours.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Actually, that isn't a source for what Sirfurboy was asking. Necrothesp didn't say Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation, he said It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith, which is false. And I'm going to say it again - that's two obviously intelligent people who are befuddled by this article, so it's no surprise it's become a racist trope for the hard of thinking, is it? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's got an academic source too, though. Let me quote it:

we examined over 2,000 press reports on [Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders] prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence.

Source is here. The issue is with the extreme specific-ness of the offence: "Group localized CSE offenders".—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position is indeed correct. The source I requested was for the statement: It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. That is wrong, and the fact that an editor and admin with the experience and intelligence of Necrothesp can make such a statement demonstrates the pernicious nature of media narratives, and the danger of a page that leans into them. From the conclusions of that paper:

The image of the Asian groomer has proved a seductive and enduring one, yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

And lest I be accused of cutting that of where it suits me, I note that it does go on to say that Asians are the second-largest racial group among suspects of various forms of CSE in two major national studies, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population. (my emphasis). That "various forms" is a gotcha. If we narrow the parameters then yes, the group is proportionally over-represented, but that is not at all the same thing as the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly this: if you narrow the parameters in an extremely specific way, you find that a certain kind of CSE in the UK is mainly perpetrated by South Asian Muslims. But if you use other parameters that isn't true.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population for that very narrow form (and law of small numbers now applies). If you narrow the parameters any further, you are consciously selecting for the result you wish to find. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a much better source than the unpublished preprint you quoted from above:

A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE. Most of the same studies show that the majority of offenders are White. [8]

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group based child sexual exploitation There's clearly a notable topic here, but it's much better presented in the context of child sexual exploitation in the UK generally rather than an article like this that will become a magnet for trolls. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic and seemingly ongoing/current cultural situation in the UK. As Kioj156, Vulpes and others state, it is well sourced, cited and beyond contention. The topic merits it's own page, it does seem a tad like censorship of a controversial topic, not what an encyclopaedia should be aiming for.Halbared (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are poor, just because it is "sourced" does not mean it is actual quality. Nor is it particularly historic given grooming for sexual purposes of children, even as groups, has existed for centuries. I would personally also contest "current/ongoing" given the majority of articles are 2014/2015. Not to mention the statistics quoted being plainly false in the original article and the other egregious issues others have pointed out earlier on this page. Namely Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite. While the topic itself may warrant a page - the "moral panic" being the best example = the original article was wholly unfit to be on the wiki. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to remove articles. The topic exists and is clearly notable. I would, however, support moving it to "Grooming Gangs in the United Kingdom", since that would provide the same content and presumably ruffle people's jimmies less. Jtrainor (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single argument has been IDONTLIKEIT, and citing that is ad hominem. The argument is that it is not a thing.

yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "UK grooming gangs moral panic" or something similar. Naming the country it took place in is neutral, unlike alleging that it was unique to one particular religion. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is certainly notable given the abundance of reliable sources covering it (see comments by Significa liberdade, Vulpes). I don't think the sources support renaming it to moral panic, this is what the Independent says “Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Alaexis_¿question? 08:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. This has already been addressed within this very page - it is a meaningless statement without context. I believe you to be misrepresenting Significa's comments also, or at least misunderstanding them. Academic sources are reliable, but the original article was incredinly poorly sourced. The "moral panic" angle is entirely justified in my opinion. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that it is "a meaningless statement without context" does not logically follow from what you quoted. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does, as other comments point out, without context it is an entirely meaningless statement where the conclusion can be obtained by obfuscating and careful manipulation of statistics and data. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources stating that any statistics or data have been "obfuscated or carefully manipulated"? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read this very page for how that has occurred further up. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Which seems to me to be a delete argument. If we have a page on the thing, we say the thing exists. Unless we have a page on the thing and say in the first sentence it doesn't exist. The page on this subject goes beyond the evidence, simply by existing as framed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not go by whether we are sure or unsure about one thing or another, nor is its policy that we need to claim that "something doesn't exist" at the beginning of an article if we're unsure about it. It goes by what reliable third party sources and others such as academic sources say, of which there are plenty on this topic, making it notable. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources say this is a media constructed narrative, and that the narrative of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. What secondary sources are you reading? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia should not have articles that identify a horrific crime with a religious faith, just as we'd never have an article titled "Jewish killers in Gaza". Such an article would be blatantly anti-semitic, just as the article about alleged "Muslim" child abuse is blatantly Islamophobic. NightHeron (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has various articles doing just that (such as the articles on "Islam and domestic violence" or "Christian terrorism.") There is also no policy Wikipedia is based on in line with what you said. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That whataboutism argument is not convincing here, because those titles are not nearly as inflammatory. Right wingers and white supremacists have a deliberate (and often successful) strategy of getting political advantage by inflaming Islamophobia. There's nothing similar with "Christianityphobia". NightHeron (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only as per the various other arguments made already (well-sourced, highly publicized in reliable sources) but also because it's hard to see good arguments being brought forth for deletion so far, rather anti-policy arguments using words like "offensive" (ignoring that WP's policy explicitly states that articles are allowed to be "offensive") and studies being brought up and misread that further provide reason to keep the article. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well sourced" is doing an awful lot of lifting in a lot of these replies, despite already being pointed out by Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite that it is in fact far from "well sourced." No one has argued that it should be removed for being "offensive" either. Blatant red herring. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is false and strangely accusatory. It is important to always assume other editors are acting in good faith, unless an editor clearly shows behaviour that suggests otherwise. Regarding your points, one editors' entire argument has been "This is offensive and almost worth a speedy as an attack page." The arguments about the sources don't check out, since there is a large amount of reliable sources being used. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It blatantly isn't false, and your reply is unfortunately transparently projecting. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The version nominated for deletion was awful but the version we have now is OK. We should have an article about this because it covers a prominent and perennial allegation made by racists, which has received significant coverage and which people will want to look it up here to find out what the deal really is. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also wondering whether the article should be renamed in a similar manner to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory? Possibly as "moral panic" rather than "conspiracy theory", unless there are sufficient sources to support "conspiracy theory". --DanielRigal (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as it was before it was very recently emasculated was well written and well sourced. And as the phenomenon is well known in Britain, and appears to be ongoing, it’s obviously notable. The phenomenon is also horrific, the implications stark, but none of that should be given any consideration as to whether an article about it should be allowed to exist. Minimising and belittling the subject, however, by describing it as a moral panic and eliminating any content which describes the phenomenon that existed and probably continues to, is very sad. As it says in the version which existed before it’s emasculation, "In 2023, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed that victims of such gangs have been ignored because of "political correctness" and cultural sensitivity." The current article appears to reflect that. There is no point in having something which does its utmost to minimise and belittle something which is so horrific and, further, looking at the recent editing, it is clear that there is no chance of getting back to the well written, well sourced and deserving article that there was. I'd like to congratulate Kioj156 for his valiant efforts in that regard, and commiserate with him for the eventual result. Boscaswell talk 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boscastle has been community banned, racism, NOFACISTS, et.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that if we can't promote the racist and conspiratorial aspects of this subject then you would rather we deleted the article and did not cover it at all? Let's be clear about why proponents of this moral panic call it "Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" and not just "Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom". It is not only Islamophobia, although obviously that is a big part of it. It is also intended to shift people's anger about child grooming exclusively onto Muslim/Asian sex offenders, taking focus away from other sex offenders, so that other sex offenders can continue grooming children with less scrutiny. It is clear enough when you look at who promotes this moral panic the loudest. The far-right is up to its eyeballs in convicted sex offenders and it needs you to think that all sex offenders are brown to stop you realising how many of them are white. (This is also the reason why they promote anti-LGBT panics. If people are distracted worrying about drag queens then they are not paying as much attention to the real dangers to children.) Of course, we can't set the world to rights here on Wikipedia, but what we can and should do is provide accurate coverage of these issues so that people who want to know the truth can find it easily. This article is doing exactly that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: Yes, that's exactly what they are saying. Given that it is only a couple of days since I had to redact a nasty bit of racism by the same editor here [10] I do wonder if we have a problem here. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like there is any CTOP restriction on UK politics. The closest is WP:NORACISTS, which is just an essay. Anyways, it seems the system is working well when bad edits seem to be caught out and reverted, right? The UK Riots definitely raised the temperature for a bit. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a CTOP restriction if people are simply violating community norms. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have WP:NOTHERE which, while it may be "only an essay", I sometimes see given as a reason for sanctions. Maybe this discussion should be moved elsewhere, however, as it's rather off-topic? Daveosaurus (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Hydrangeans's argument, Wikipedia does not exist to regurgitate moral panic or sensationalism. Brocade River Poems 05:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed almost entirely from the version that was nominated for deletion and which Hydrangeans was commenting on. That version was indeed regurgitating the moral panic to a significant and unacceptable degree, and I would also have !voted to delete it if that was all we had. What we have now is sober coverage of the moral panic which serves to inform our readers of what lies lie behind the loaded phrase that is the article's title. Maybe the article needs renaming? Maybe the bad version should be deleted from the article's public history? Maybe there is other work still to do? Nonetheless, I think that the, initially valid, concerns about endorsing and sensationalising the panic have been addressed successfully and that the article is now a net positive for Wikipedia and for the world. This AfD will have encouraged more good editors to add it to their watchlists. Will racists try to hijack the article in the future? Probably. That's something that they try do to a lot of articles, but we are better placed to detect and revert them next time without the fuss of another AfD. Assuming that the article is kept, I see this AfD as a good example of an undertaking that has "failed successfully". --DanielRigal (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears someone attempted to revert a portion of the changes here, attempting to argue that the talk page (with three folks cross-chatting), provided consensus.. I suppose what I would like to see from this AfD is an OK from closer on the WP:TNT we basically already did when we reverted back to when the page was originally just about a moral panic. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

I fear that this topic will undoubtedly attract the plethora of bad faith editors (some even experienced editors no less) as you've already pointed out and found with the recent attempted reverts. I support your WP:TNT.TwinkleStarzz (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Libs of TikTok page, and various other pages that are the obsession of far-right editors on here regularly has back and forths on the page. As long as there is someone watching the page, it's unlikely they can fully butcher the subject as they did here originally before the massive revert. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, remove mention of "moral panic" as this only exists in one source. Possibly revert some of the changes made since this AfD started. I'd support another RM if needed, as I think the previous one was closed prematurely (I started it). I've come around to the reasoning in the !vote from Necrothesp above, and think Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would be fine. Core reason behind my !vote: Grooming gangs in the UK exist, and there has been significant coverage of questions about their members' race/religion/ethnicity (just the first three examples I could find: BBC, Sky, Guardian. Wikipedia can neutrally report that this coverage exists without either endorsing or dismissing it, but mention reliable sources that do endorse or dismiss it. I think WP:TNT is avoiding the subject, rather than a necessary step for an article that can't be improved. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"remove mention of "moral panic" as this only exists in one source."

1) [11] is about scapegoating of muslim men and uses moral panic terminology

2) [12] describes grooming as a "dubious category", "claims of a uniquely racial crime threat are ill founded", "current fixation with grooming and ‘Asian sex gangs’ are examined and shown to further a political agendum and legitimise thinly veiled racism,"

3) [13] describes obsession with race as creation of new Folk devil in the media

4) [14] - a conservative government dominated office is forced to admit they have no proof of dinstinctly Asian grooming groups, and that white men still make up most of the grooming claims. "existing evidence does not prove a link to ethnicity"

5) [15] NSPCC, a premier child safety org in the UK working on child exploitation dismisses claims of Grooming gangs by conservative politicians as "misinformation, racism and division.”

I am happy to think of other ways to discuss this on Talk Page when this AfD ends. Maybe Muslim grooming gang myth? Muslim grooming gang conspiracy theory?

Grooming gangs in the UK exist

"grooming gang" material should go to Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. No doubt it exists, thats why there is already an article sub-section that appropriately deals with it.

there has been significant coverage of questions about their members' race/religion/ethnicity

1) BBC - "it is likely that no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending"

2) Sky - discusses a politician and the immense backlash from multiple advocacy groups, (Muslim groups and many non-Muslim groups) against what they describe as "far-right" advocacy

3) Guardian more info dismissing the theory

Wikipedia can neutrally report that this coverage exists without either endorsing or dismissing it

Wikipedia should reflect what reporting and useful analyses suggest, that it is a WP:FRINGE theory and to attempt to suggest that the wide range of orgs and stats that debunk it are somehow biased is WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia should reflect what reporting and useful analyses suggest, that it is a WP:FRINGE theory" - I entirely agree with you. It is a theory that has been widely discussed, and it has been shown that there is little evidence for it. Because the theory has been widely discussed, there should be a page on the debunked theory (whether or not "theory" is the correct word), referencing things like the BBC/Sky/Guardian article, and the points from them that you make above. Forgive me if this is too flippant, but in the same way we have an article on Flat Earth.

Your analysis above of sources shows one that uses the term "moral panic". This is not enough to make this nomenclature the main thrust of the article (thought it warrants a mention). The fact that I'm saying "moral panic" is not the correct and primary way for this to be characterised does not mean the article should do anything that show the facts as you've outlined in your response to me above. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My phrasing above "without dismissing it" was a poor choice of words. I basically mean "without TNT-ing all mention of the theory". We should be clear it is not fact. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least rename. Focusing on a specific religion to have an article on (while there isn't a main article Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom) is absurd when all studies have found that they aren't over-represented in the actual abuser statistics. Having this specific article as an "encyclopedic" topic only serves to give the impression that "Muslim grooming gangs" are actually a specific happening, rather than a product of the media over-focusing on a specific religion. If we want to critically discuss the phenomenon of their over-representation in media, the title should very much not make it appear to be an objective fact. A title mentioning "moral panic" or at least "allegations" would be a lot more neutral, and fit better with the actual content of the article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group based child sexual exploitation: The subject of grooming gangs is notable, however the framing is a WP:POV quagmire which by its nature engages in WP:OR. If there wasn't a target for redirect I'd be recommending deletion per WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: delete, delete. Read the Etymology section; "It is most often used in a "racially loaded" manner to describe groups of child sexual abusers". This is a horrible article. There is more than one mention of the word "scandal". The atrocity is in the wording. Things like "unfashionable facts" or "scandal" (Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal) is ridiculous and an aberration of the horror many children have had and likely still endure. The main issue is the lack of reliable sources to name the article as is. Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom should be clear cut, and reliably sourced. Since it is not then by following sensationalism Wikipedia furthers Neologisms until the term sticks. This subject can likely not be written in a way that is balanced and not biased. As stated: "Wikipedia does not exist to regurgitate moral panic or sensationalism". -- Otr500 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The objective of the article, especially the title, is to incite anti-Muslim feeling. Do we have an article titled "Catholic grooming gangs" or "Protestant grooming gangs"? It happens among both groups -- rather frequently among the clergy. (We have an article titled Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, but that points the finger at the organization, and not the majority of individuals professing the faith.) Second, the word "gangs" in the title implies to me an organized endeavor by groups of people. I don't find that justified by the narrative. And third, the generic use of the word "Muslim" in the title implies that all Muslims are implicated. However, the content of the article seems to apply only to South Asians -- rather than the large majority of Muslims who are not South Asians. We shouldn't tar all Muslims with the crime of some Muslims any more than we should generalize about the adherents of any other religion. Smallchief (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an established term that I have personally heard various people say. Whether anybody on WP finds the political implications positive or negative, should be entirely irrelevant. While there have also been valid concerns above, the larger controversy here appears entirely artificial to me. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's artificial. Made in the Times, principally, with support from a number of other otherwise-highly-regarded news sources, as well as the Daily Mail and Daily Express which are rather less highly-regarded.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's mostly artifical, hence the need for a solid and well-referenced criticism section. But this is also not a place to right great wrongs. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We never right great wrongs, until, according to the policy "...it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses"

Good thing there is a home office report, multiple reliable sourcing documenting the bias, and significant works suggesting this is a narrative that right-wing and far-right voices amplify. In which case, WP:DUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE concerns matter. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the POV garbage and move whatever can be salvaged to Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. M.Bitton (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment started an RM when I saw that AfD was closed... Guess it was unclosed, but assuming this article is kept, renaming is next step. I'll massping everyone on this afd when this all ends and article is kept. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as withdrawn‎. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle judicatory

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

Religious terminology. This is certainly a thing that exists, as Google Books results show. But the article is essentially unsourced and marked as such since 2021. The one source is an apparently WP:SPS "research report" that is barely comprehensible and does not appear to support the article's contents. In particular, there is no source confirming that the various religious structures listed in the article are "middle judicatories". Unless properly sourced, this article has no place in an encyclopedia, per WP:V (let alone WP:N). Sandstein 22:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Sandstein 22:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I've substantially expanded this article (per WP:HEY) with references to numerous reliable sources. The concept definitely passes WP:GNG, although the nominator did not define which notability standard they thought it failed, and the article also passes WP:V. I also cleaned up the list of links to judicatories. With the original nomination rationale no longer valid, I'd ask @Sandstein: to consider withdrawing the nomination. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn in view of sourced rewrite; thanks! Sandstein 21:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tallaal Adrey

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

I don't think the person meets the notability policy; only news about his trial. Nothing else.-- فيصل (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Kuwait, and Australia. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - also, one newspaper article is original research, not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Al-Mazeedi

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

I don't see that the person meets the notability criteria; I couldn't find reliable sources that talk about him.-- فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find sources in English to meet WP:BIO. I would reconsider if there are sources in Arabic but there's no Arabic version of this article. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are literally zero verified sources about this living person. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 02:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CITTA Foundation

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

This article is very promotional and written in a very spammy way. I have already removed a copyright violation but I cannot find any sustained coverage of the organisation that would help it pass WP:NCORP, save some press releases. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, Economics, Nepal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article goes over a foundation. Many of the individual projects have coverage in reliable, neutral, third-party sources (especially in terms of architecture) which are cited. One of the projects is already a Wikipedia article and is linked to in the article. In terms of individual projects, there is a healthy amount of coverage online. I will add criticism about one project that was discontinued to add a complete perspective of all projects. — Note to closing admin: Starlighsky (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it is not promotion or advertising because it has a criticism of a failed project by the foundation. Starlighsky (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that the article was based on the GYAAN Center architecture. The reasoning was that writing about the foundation allows for the center to be written about: (External link) The Gyaan Center, a Sustainable Architectural Marvel in the Heart of India’s Golden City - Architect and Interiors India Starlighsky (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and RangersRus. Even if it’s not strictly promotional, it’s just tun of the mill, and not covered in a significant way in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The foundation is likely notable. If someone adds more sources, it would be very helpful. The editing spirit (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Narayan

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

Simply fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Article does not speak for itself and sources from here and WP:BEFORE do not imply notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: does meet WP:DIRECTOR with two notable films directed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:DIRECTOR from long interviews. I've learned from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eashvar Karthic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DareshMohan (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now looking like a probably No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NDIRECTOR through Maradona (2018 film) and Nadanna Sambhavam. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:DIRECTOR and as per those two films. Xegma(talk) 13:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smith (soccer, born 1999)

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

Came up during the Wikiproject talk page discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Wood (soccer), and Michael Smith looks equally far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same problems as what I previously posted at Christian Wood, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I agree with the nominator that verification is not the issue here but notability and significance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements for the 2006 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006

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

On the face of it someone put in a fair bit of work into this, but as about half of the entries are unsourced, with very old citation needed templates, we are left with a page that is not very accurate on a subject that is not very notable, and not very likely to ever get finished. The leadership election of the Canadian liberal party in 2006 is almost certainly notable, but a list of who endorsed whom is not. What it is, is original research. If someone has put together this list and it is referred to in a secondary source, then it is notable but could be mentioned on a page about the election. If this collection does not exist anywhere, then it is not notable and the curation here is WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Canada. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt Keep, it's fairly easy to verify most of the citation needed claims- just my computer isn't able to handle editing the article. Searching the name of the person and then the candidate often gives results. Using Allan Armsworthy as a example, I found this article from The Casket which confirmed the endorsement. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the sourcing for the endorsements does not explain why a list of who endorsed whom in that election is independently notable for a page. Is this established as a collection anywhere, per WP:LISTN? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an example of the kind of thing that seemed like a good idea in 2006 when the leadership convention was current news, but is not important historical information that would pass the enduring significance test now that we're almost 20 years removed from the event. Basically, it's a WP:NOTNEWS issue: even if some of the referencing can be improved with better sources, what's lacking is a reason why readers would actually still be looking for this information at all anymore. And note that this sort of thing has not been maintained for any of the other leadership conventions that Canadian political parties have held since 2006, either, so it's not part of any comprehensive set. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastex Advocate

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

I believe this should be treated under WP:NCORP. Although news media is media, it still needs to be shown to be notable. No secondary sources on the page (news announcements about ownership are primary) and I don't see secondary sourcing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH in searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Products. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan (Nepalese actor)

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nutan (actor)

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

Deleted in January as Nutan (actor). Still doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who accepted this article, initially I thought he might meet the general notability guideline, but now looking back, yeah, he doesn't. Delete. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search about him on Google, YouTube and other websites. I think he meets the general notability guideline. Most of his articles are in Nepalese language, so you might be thinking that way. Thanks! 111.119.49.66 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion, so relisting to come to clearer consensus to delete the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chelari Airport

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

This looks to be a hoax. All sources are based on a facebook post by an "assistant professor of journalism"[16] and are accompanied by the same two images, a very grainy (newspaper?) photo of what looks like anything but an airstrip, and a photo of a plane in the "The Hindu" livery. It is not only not the place that crashed (which was a DC47, a two motor plane, not a four motor airplane), but it is a photoshopped version of this image, completely unrelated to the airport or newspaper. Fram (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Kerala. Fram (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This airbase was built in 1962 at Chelari , Calicut (now Malappuram district) and was established by the Birla Group.The airport was used to land small aircraft carrying newspapers of The Hindu to the Malabar region and to bring other cargo to the Malabar region. It ceased operations after a 1969 plane crash[17] [18], and after the construction of the Kozhikode Airport, it was closed down. The Madhyamam Daily newspaper, which has three hundreds of thousands of subscribers in Kerala and outside India, quoted a journalist as reporting on the airport and the accident there [19] ~ ~ Spworld2 (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly not a hoax, lots of hits for the "old Chelari airport," but will need a good copy edit if it is kept. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to list these hits so we can judge them and see if they are a) reliable and b) based on anything but the Hindu Post crash story? Fram (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a primary source, but there's this written answer in parliament from the end of 1965: Will the Minister of Civil Aviation be pleased to state: (a) whether any offer has been received from the Birlas agreeing to place the Chelari Aerodrome near Calicut for providing regular Dakota service; [...] Yes, Sir. This airstrip in its present condition is not suitable for the scheduled operations of I.A.C. However, this offer has been kept in view while surveying for suitable sites for an airport for Calicut. So it certainly existed. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I think. The article linked explains it. It was never an airport; it was a small airstrip. The Facebook post with obviously AI-generated images of what the airstrip "looked like" seems to have caused confusion. This source also confirms the airstrip did exist and is not, in fact, a hoax (apparently contrary to popular belief). There's also this source. It's mentioned here too. So notability of the airstrip appears to have been established, but the article needs to be reworked/renamed based on the sources available and mention the misinformation (as that appears to be the basis for a lot of coverage) around its existence. Someone should take a more in-depth look beyond Google Translate to make sure this is actually the case. C F A 💬 19:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is a clear consensus that the article should not be kept. There was a minority position that the content should be merged into the parent article, but that seems to have been rejected by subsequent commenters due to a lack of usable prose to merge. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexicana de Aviación destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, during the 89 year history of this airline, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2011, but the part that is sourced is sourced to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like airlineroute.net, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press and local news (failing WP:AUD). Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. If this were a notable topic, I would expect to see a history of the airline covering its destinations - but no such coverage is present nor do I see it in a quick search. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Mexico. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT doesn't actually apply here, per the recent RfC. It's not a catalogue as it's not promotional, where an airline flies is necessary and encyclopedic to understanding the airline's scope, and it's sourced well enough that we're able to have it on the site. There's an attempt to exclude the number of news sites and blogs which significantly cover airline routes from ever being reliable, which is incorrect. There's also prose in the article about the airline's historical destinations which could be expanded. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”per the recent RFC” - care to give us a link here? I’m not aware of a new RFC having closed in this field lately. EDIT: and having checked on VPP, the Aviation project page, and the WP:NOT talk page I also don’t see one.

The prose simply repeats what’s already said in the main article. FOARP (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only RFC I can find related to this is this not so recent one that says that these sort of lists should not be kept as due to Wikipedia not being a directory. cyberdog958^Talk 04:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Obviously closers have to determine the weight they give !votes themselves, but a !vote based on a non-existent RFC should not be given a lot of weight. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is not a resource for doing business so NOTCATALOGUE doesn't apply. It is well defined and of limited scope so it is not indiscriminate. Sources do cover the topic, and even if alternative formats for presentation may be better, it does not need to be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The last 15 AFDs related to Airline destination lists all closed as Delete/Redirect/Merge. Since the start of 2023 more than 300 such articles have been deleted. FOARP (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mexicana de Aviación#Destinations as an alternative to deletion – Not a notable list in itself and the references are all primary. However, whilst I don't have much of an opinion on this matter, in my opinion, the information from this article could be merged, summarised and redirected to Mexicana's destinations page as this would provide much more information and context to Mexicana's history as an airline, rather than splitting the section into an article with not much context given. (Based on WP:PAGEDECIDE). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. I see no need for Wikipedia to record that at one point in its 89-year history this airline flew to Random City X that appears in its timetable from March 1965. I regard this information as airline trivia. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very limited (if any) information is salavageable with mostly WP:PRIMARY references (Aeroroutes republishing airline schedules) used. A brief one parargaph summary of the destinations served by Mexicana in the main article may suffice provided it is referenced by primary and backed by reliable secondary sources. Coastie43 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's arguments are convincing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/AfD record indicates a broader community consensus that such content is a WP:IINFO matter, and the quality of the sourcing falls far short of that required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Discarding the canvassed (UPE?), non-P&G views, we're left with a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 20:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox Business Technologies

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

Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate advertisements. This is related to Ghias Khan paid-for-spam. IPO of this company didn't happen so WP:LISTED is not applicable. Other than that there are routine press releases or brief coverage in WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. DeploreJames (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @DeploreJames, Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the Ghias Ali BLP is paid-for-spam or are these just allegations? Regardless, the focus should be on removing promotional content per WP:ATD rather than seeking deletion. Also, you should notify the page creator @Crosji: on their tp about this AFD. PS. declare your master sock account, please. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it @Saqib Inbox, plays a significant role in Pakistan's IT sector. However, I've noticed that the article has been gradually shortened over the past few weeks. While changes are healthy, it's clear that anonymous users have removed entire sections, and after suggesting AFD, sourced content has been removed to further weaken it. Given the company's recent media presence (here, here, here and here), I recommend updating the article and ensuring its preservation. Insofar, I would suggest to keep it. @DeploreJames is your account only focusing on Pakistan to delete articles? Crosji (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to sources which you believe meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability? You've pointed to 4 sources but this in Tribune is about the company being warned to pay minimum wage but has no in-depth information about the company, this is in Techjuice which does not appear to meet the criteria for a [[WP:RS|reliable source] as it has no "about" page and may not have any editorial control - in other words it is a type of news blog, this in The News is a mere mention in passing because one of the directors was being written about in a totally different context, and this in the Tribune is a single sentence about a company announcement. "Media presence" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability, rather the content must meet GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @HighKing I came across this link to an article that discusses a notable aspect of their business, specifically their "web monitoring system"), which is central of this story. This may clarify why it's challenging to find many sources. Additionally, I found another reference, though it's a bit out-dated, that also highlights the company's significance. Crosji (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Crosji, the article in Dawn mentions the 2nd article and paraphrases it without adding anything extra about the company, so as a source in its own right (for the purposes of establishing notability) it can be ignored. Looking then at the article in Coda, it says that the topic company has partnered with a Canadian company to provide a solution to monitor web and call traffic. The article only says that the topic company were licensed to install the Canadian company's technology. It attributes the technology enabling "web monitoring" to the Canadian technology, not that of the topic company. But of more relevance to here, there is insufficient in-depth information provided about the *company* in this article, and it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. As to this in The Express Tribune, it is a regurgitated announcement of the company receiving an industry award, the same story carried on the same day in several other publications such as here and here and here. It is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree with @Saqib to avoid WP:Popularage, this article is consistent with WP guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:RS. It also does not fail WP:NCORP as the primary criteria for WP:ORG is “A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Faraz.salim (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Faraz.salim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Welcome back after an absence of 10 years to !vote at this AfD. Can you perhaps point to any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:SIRS. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine funding announcements, leadership changes, republished press releases, etc. all do not count towards WP:NCORP notability. Don't see much in-depth coverage about the company. C F A 💬 17:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Engro Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghias Khan

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

CEO doing his job, nothing significant done by him in his corporate career. References are basically primary references (i.e. interview) or mentions in reliable references. Pakistan & Gulf Economist article is the best reference about him but an archived version reveals that it is an interview as well ([20]). Bloomberg.com database entries are not useful for notability purposes. Clearly no way near meeting WP:GNG. DeploreJames (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Engro Corporation: as the subject is known for being the CEO of Engro, one of Pakistan's largest corporations. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, there are numerous articles on corporate leaders from all over who have held key positions and become part of public discourse, like Ghias Khan from Pakistan. He has interacted with public figures, made significant contributions to the industry, and recently moved on after many years. To test notability you just needed to read/watch news the lkast few years. It's legitimate to have such an article, and the fact that it has garnered at least 50K views indicates a certain level of public interest, therefore it should not be deleted but updated. Crosji (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosji, As the creator of this BLP, I’d love to see it rescued. However, I, lack the time or perhaps the interest, to dig into sources and defend this BLP, so I voted for a redirect. But anyway please remember to avoid WP:ATA (in this case WP:POPULARPAGE) when casting votes in AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Saqib. WP:ROTM businessman, lacks direct and in-depth non-routine coverage. Interviews are not helpful to pass WP:GNG. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. The sourcing is mostly PR rehash, so he doesn’t get to significant coverage. A redirect is preferable IMHO to an outright deletion for CEOs. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The arguments for keeping the page carried little or no P&G weight. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Delhi Premier League T20

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

Another example of a local Indian cricket tournament that doesn't need separate season articles. The fact that the teams are mostly non notable players (with 1-2 exceptions per team) makes it no surprise to me that this season article doesn't pass WP:GNG independently of general coverage about tournament creation which is relevant mainly to the parent article Delhi Premier League T20. We need to stop creating season articles for every local one city or state T20 tournaments with non notable players. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Delhi. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please check the Tamil Nadu Premier League pages, including those dedicated to individual annual editions like the 2022 Tamil Nadu Premier League, 2023 Tamil Nadu Premier League, and 2024 Tamil Nadu Premier League. Separate pages exist for each team as well. Similarly, the Delhi Premier League T20, which is also organized under the directions of Board of Control for Cricket in India BCCI, has gained significant coverage after the successful completion of its seasons. Given this, it would be beneficial for Wikipedia readers to have dedicated pages for each annual edition of the Delhi Premier League T20, as well as individual pages for each team, similar to those for Tamil Nadu Premier League teams like Salem Spartans, Chepauk Super Gillies, and Lyca Kovai Kings. Davidrun99 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note Several Twenty20 pages have existed includimg thier annual leagues for many years, and in my opinion, it is not appropriate to nominate them for deletion.
List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India
Andhra Premier League
Bengal Pro T20 League
Chhattisgarh Cricket Premier League
Delhi Premier League T20
Kerala Cricket League
Madhya Pradesh League
Maharaja Trophy KSCA T20
Maharashtra Premier League
Odisha Cricket League
Pondicherry Premier League
Rajasthan Premier League
Saurashtra Premier League
Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup
UP T20 League

Davidrun99 (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not a valid reason to keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnoteworthy local city league. The league is not notable (even majority of the players) or noteworthy enough nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would highlight that the population of Delhi, over 28 million people, is more than many countries so to refer to this as a 'Local League' per some contributors above is slightly disingenuous. As the biggest sport in a sizable catchment area with considerable media interest it is clear that this competition, as well as the other state level T20 leagues in India, fulfils Wikipedia's Notability criteria. Bobby2302 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.50.178 (talk) — 185.13.50.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note to Admin: IP 185.13.50.178 signed itself as BobbyB. Maybe same users? BobbyB has only one edit to its account and that was in 2006.[reply]

This IP edit claiming to be another user also looks like an attempt to imitate me (using 2302 and the exact colours of my signature). As well as making no actual claim on why separate season articles should exist (as they seem to be talking about the main tournament articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was trying to work out how do do a signiture. My comment still stands that the artical should be kept per policy. 185.13.50.219 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy should it be kept under? Because there is no evidence this passes WP:GNG, which is the main way of determining keeping or deleting of articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Another of these local leagues that seem to have been mass-created of late, lacking any notability or substance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Also, suspect IP commenting seems quackers. AA (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Guidelines / Standards for Establishing Wikipedia Notability for State Cricket Leagues:

In my opinion, establishing clear guidelines for creating Wikipedia articles related to state cricket leagues is essential to ensure they meet the notability criteria and have a lasting presence on the platform. To pass the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG and retain annual league and team articles, I propose the following criteria:

Completion of Multiple Seasons: State leagues, such as the Tamil Nadu Premier League, should successfully complete at least one to three annual league series. This demonstrates consistency, relevance, and the league’s potential for long-term significance in the cricketing landscape.

Involvement of National Players: The state league should feature at least 10 players who have competed in prestigious events such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), national cricket tournaments, or international matches. The presence of such players not only elevates the league's standard but also increases its notability and media coverage.

Minimum Team Requirement and Broadcast Standards: To align with national and international guidelines, the state cricket league should consist of a minimum of six teams. Additionally, the league should be broadcast live on major sports channels like Star Sports, ESPN, or equivalent platforms. This ensures widespread visibility and demonstrates the league’s significance beyond the local level.

By adhering to these guidelines, we can ensure that Wikipedia articles about state cricket leagues are both notable and valuable resources for readers, reflecting the importance of these leagues in the broader context of cricket. Davidrun99 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just writing the rules/entry criteria for a tournament doesn't mean that it passes WP:GNG, which is the main criteria for whether an article is kept or not (not any of the rules you're making up on this and similar AFDs). Where is the evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the evidences of significant coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season:

Vikas265 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[21] is WP:ROUTINE coverage about event schedule. [22] is behind a paywall so I cannot analyse, but looks from the first paragraph to be general information not WP:SIGCOV. [23] and [24] are regurgitated press releases from sponsors. [25] is not a reliable source (as per Wikipedia:REPUBLICTV). I'm not saying the parent article should be deleted, just that season articles are not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season:

1.Delhi Premier League T20, Match 16 Review: Keshav Dabas' fifty powers Central Delhi Kings to five-wicket win over East Delhi Riders.

2. Delhi Premier League T20 2024, Match 15 Review: Arya's historic ton leads South Delhi Supertstarz to dominant win over Purani Dilli 6. Vikas265 (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, the above are WP:ROUTINE, the sort of coverage matches in my local cricket league in the South of England gets. AA (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No valid argument to keep, even if we ignore the obvious sockery/canvassing. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeye Penhan

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

Fails WP:NFILM in short. No critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Iran. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about an Iranian film that was recorded in Iran according to the sources available in the article. If the article is lacking in content, it is likely that the user who created it did not have sufficient information and was unable to provide further edits. As you may have noticed, a 'stub' template has been added at the end of the article, indicating that editors are encouraged to help expand the article by adding more information. According to this procedure, the article needs more time to be completed. However, you have placed a deletion template on this article, which goes against the rules of English Wikipedia." 5.233.174.226 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have no decent sourcing to start with, adding a stub template doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mentions in RS other than what's given; not seeing notability for this short film. I don't find any sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A statement is made that is not logical. You say there are no sources, so what are the sources listed in the references section for? This has been officially announced as a certain type of film and has been screened as a cinematic movie in Iran and registered on IMDb. You shouldn't compare this article, which pertains to Iran, with an article related to the United States, because it was created by an editor who has limited knowledge about Iranian cinema, and this will be corrected over time with the help of other editors. Unfortunately, you made a hasty decision to delete this article, which is not logical and violates Wikipedia's rules. This article is still new and was created just a month ago, and a stub template has been added to allow editors to contribute, with credible sources also cited. 5.233.174.226 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, with its completed information, should remain on English Wikipedia and not be deleted, so that it can be improved and matured by editors.

Thank you. 5.233.230.102 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know that a topic is notable enough to merit an article first, instead of creating an article and waiting to see if editors find enough sources. However, the other option is always to set up a draft, which can be improved and moved back into the main article space once it's ready. hinnk (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to stay: This article is about an Iranian film and is still in the early stages. It should be allowed to be edited. If the article has any issues, please help by editing and improving it rather than deleting the article altogether. With suggested edits from editors, this article can be strengthened, but deleting it would not be productive. This article should remain; otherwise, we would be violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you.HistoryBuff98 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff98 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~to stay~~: The article has been updated with new sources that establish its notability and confirm the significance of the film according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The references are now comprehensive. This article should remain on English Wikipedia so that we, the editors, can continue to expand and improve it.HistoryBuff98 (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff98 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to stay: According to the sources, this article should stay in Wikipedia. This movie is about an Iranian movie that received high feedback and has many fans that people and viewers read about it on Wikipedia. This article has reliable sources that many news sites say about it. And because this is an Iranian article, it has been neglected, which needs time to reach maturity and become big and wide. In my opinion, this article should stay in English Wikipedia. Thanks to the administrators of English Wikipedia.5.233.224.246 (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search in English or Arabic (سایه‌ی پنهان) yields nothing reliable. Is akhbarrasmi.com a reliable source? @Vanderwaalforces: @Oaktree b: DareshMohan (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan That source does not appear reliable, it does seem very much like a service that aggregates news from sources, as opposed to producing news itself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of institutes in Bangladesh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Science and Technology, Bangladesh

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

Non-notable educational institution. No independent, reliable sources could be found in English or Bengali that contain significant coverage of it, so there should not be a stand alone article on the topic. I had previously redirected it to List of institutes in Bangladesh, but was reverted by the author, an alumnus. Worldbruce (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "List of institutes in Bangladesh" Fails WP:GNG and there is clearly a WP:COI issue around the article. Is Bangladesh Institute of Science and Technology a separate institute, as it looks very much alike. The Banner talk 09:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claims, hints or evidence of notability. Nothing beyond it exists.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Sitters International

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

No evidence PSI meets N:ORG. A membership organization & trade association whose coverage is mostly non independent and definitely not in depth. Star Mississippi 02:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Companies, and North Carolina. Star Mississippi 02:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Costello, Jane (1999-09-02). "With Two Pet-Sitting Groups, Naturally Things Turn Catty". The Wall Street Journal. p. B1. ProQuest 398712141.
  The article notes: "After a series of catfights, Ms. Moran left NAPPS in 1993 and set up a rival organization, Pet Sitters International. The sponsor of Take Your Dog to Work Day, PSI now has 2,900 members, who pay $80 in annual dues. Through a correspondence school, PSI members can also apply to become an "Accredited Pet Sitting Technician" for $299. With further training, and another $179, there's the title "Advanced Pet Sitting Technician." For another $50, there's "Master Pet Sitting Professional." At PSI's conference in New Orleans next week, topics will include the "untapped market" for midday dog-walking and ways to avoid professional burnout. While PSI has accumulated the lion's share of pet sitters, NAPPS has recruited 1,200 members ..."
2. Sturiale, Jeanne (2004-03-19). "King Woman Is a Leader in the Field of Pet-Sitting - Members Accredited to Visit Pets in Homes". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article notes: "About 10 years ago, Patti Moran founded Pet Sitters International Inc. to encourage professionalism in the emerging field of in-home pet care. Since then, Pet Sitters International, a for-profit association in King, has grown to more than 6,000 members in nine countries, with members ranging from one-person shops to companies with 125 pet sitters on staff. ... After Moran sold her pet-sitting business in 1993, friends encouraged her to start an association. A year later, she formed Pet Sitters International. ... Moran wouldn't reveal profits, but, with annual member dues of $99, Pet Sitters International's sales exceed $500,000 a year."
3. Daniel, Fran (2014-04-06). "A furry friend's safe haven. Globe pet-sitting association began in Triad" (pages 1 and 2). Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Patti Moran's love for dogs. cats and other pets morphed from a petting-sitting business into an international pet-sitting association based in King. Founded in 1994, Pet Sitters International is an educational organization for professional pet sitters. The association has 7,000 members, of which 331 are based in 30 countries outside the United States, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and Brazil. For the past 20 years, the association has focused on helping people start their own professional pet-sitting services by offering access to pet-sitter specific business and educational resources, as well as educating pet owners about the importance of choosing "quality pet-care providers.""
4. Caldwell, Neill (2019-11-06). "King-based worldwide organization celebrates 25 years". The Stokes News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article notes: "Pet Sitters International celebrated that 25th anniversary this past weekend during its annual World Educational Conference. Patti Moran is the founder and is considered a pioneer — not just for Pet Sitters International but for an entire industry that didn’t really exist until she envisioned it. The organization was started in Winston-Salem, but the Morans moved to King 22 years ago. ... In 1994, Moran founded Pet Sitters International (PSI). ... PSI began publishing the first magazine for professional pet sitters, now called Pet Sitter’s World. Moran and PSI also established Professional Pet Sitters Week, now a recognized, annual observance around the globe. The organization also promotes pet adoption, has an awards program, an online store and offers its members certifications and bonding. It is the world’s largest educational association for professional pet sitters and dog walkers."
5. Duea, Angela Williams (2008). How To Open & Operate a Financially Successful Pet Sitting Business. Ocala, Florida: Atlantic Publishing. pp. 34, 223–224. ISBN 978-1-60138-229-0. Retrieved 2024-08-12 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 34: "Pet Sitters International (PSI) offers pet sitters an accreditation program to sharpen their professional skills. An in-depth educational program teaches pet sitters about pet care, health and nutrition, business management, office procedures, and additional services. The top pet sitting professionals in the industry have worked together to develop this coursework. While you can gain this knowledge in other places, such as by reading this book, PSI offers accreditation for students completing this coursework. Your clients will know that by hiring an accredited sitter, they are assured of hiring a professional with in-depth knowledge and skills in caring for pets and a good knowledge of modern pet-care practices. To become accredited, the pet sitter has to learn and exhibit a working knowledge of taking care of many types of animals and running an efficient business."
  The book notes on pages 223–224: "Pet Sitters International is dedicated to educating professional pet sitters and promoting, supporting, and recognizing excellence in pet sitting. This professional association offers pet sitters an accreditation program to sharpen their professional skills. An in-depth educational program teaches business management, office procedures, and additional services. The top pet-sitting professionals in the industry have worked together to develop this coursework."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pet Sitters International to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for the sources @Cunard, 5 was new to me but I'm not sure 1-4 are suitably independent as the blurbs are lifted from versions of their site which makes me think they're re-prints of press releases and other communications from Moran. Maybe the depth will end up being there given their history but I"ve not yet found it. Will keep looking too. Star Mississippi 12:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me how these sources are lifted from versions of their website or are reprints of press releases. Reliable sources have covered the company's history, products, and initiatives like Take Your Dog to Work Day. This is the coverage I'd expect notable companies to receive. Some of this information is also covered on the company's website but I don't see any close paraphrasing or indication that the sources solely relied on what the company said. I think there's enough independent coverage from national publications like The Wall Street Journal and Atlantic Publishing to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sourcing presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on the first two sources surfaced by @Cunard above. The Winston Salem Journal article is independent and significant coverage, and the WSJ article is not particularly long but is in-depth and independent. Both meet SIGCOV. I can't access #3 but it looks like it could go either way. 4 and 5 seem quite PR/publicity driven (not saying #5 is not independent, but the information seems regurgitated). Oblivy (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Cunard has provided links to sources above but that these fail the criteria as follows:

The WSJ article contains approx 7 sentences containing information about the company which mostly simple recites the fees, courses and accreditation, all repeated from the website. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The rest of the article is about the founder falling out with a rival organisation and an upcoming conference.
This first article in the W-S Journal is a puff profile, based entirely on an interview with the founder, Moran. There is no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. Similarly the second W-S Journal article is also based entirely on an interview with the founder and has no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
This from Stoke News is based on an announcement of 25 years in business and an interview with the founder. It repeats the same information as in the other articles, about how she was let go from a previous job and set up the company and wrote a book. It regurgitates the same messaging as in the other article and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
The book "How To Open & Operate a Financially Successful Pet Sitting Business" copies the bullet points listed on pages 34, 35 and 36 from the company as acknowledged by the copyright notice. It is also included in the appendix which lists lots of organisations but the open sentence describing the company is copied in parts from the website and the rest simply regurgitates the same descriptions we've seen in the other articles. There is no "Independent Content" or any content which cannot be found on archived copies of the website, fails ORGIND

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 18:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Wall Street Journal article provides ~~2012~~ 212 words about the subject and is not based on interviews with the subject. It meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.
The articles in the Winston-Salem Journal and The Stokes News are detailed profiles of the company and contain sufficient non-interview coverage in the text I quoted to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. The sources all discuss the company's origin story because it's an important part of the company's history. That the sources are consistent in their descriptions of the company's origin story does not make the sources non-independent. The sources are enough for the company to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, @Cunard. I agree, the Wall Street Journal can only be seen as an independent article with substantial information about the company. IMHO as a WSJ journalist there should be a high hurdle to claim it's not independent, but you bring the facts to back up that opinion.
With regard to the Winston-Salem Journal piece the journalist appears to have been a bit more intimate with the article subject but "at worst" this is earned media and not something where the article is speaking on behalf of the subject.
I didn't think the Stokes News article was very independent, as it's mostly based on an interview, but I agree there's independent journalistic content in there as well so perhaps it gets some weight. Oblivy (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are good points. Thank you, Oblivy (talk · contribs). I've fixed a typo I made about The Wall Street Journal source. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit 212 words << 2012 words, but my other points stand especially regarding the reputation of WSJ (the famous one) for independence. In future perhaps could you find sources that don't have the same (WSJ) acronym?? Oblivy (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind for next time! Two WJSs is too confusing! Cunard (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response I cannot see 212 words in the WSJ journal that are about the organization tbh. Also, it isn't only quotation or interviews or other types of directly quoted wording which falls foul of ORGIND, but also information which clearly originates from the organization or their officers. It is a fact that the WSJ spoke with or interviewed the founder for the article as they include a direct quote about her quitting NAPPS saying "It was hard to get anything done". That the article might paraphrase or otherwise not directly quote exactly what was said does not make the *content* independent - clearly there is no dispute that the publisher (WSJ) and PSI are corporately independent. The information about the accreditation and the number of members is on the website - or more likely with information provided during the interview. Also remember, that once you discard the information that fails ORGIND, the remaining content must be SIGCOV significant and CORPDEPTH in-depth - none of the content is either significant or in-depth about the organization. HighKing 14:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by @Cunard, in particular #1 and #2. The idea that WSJ coverage wouldn't somehow be independent is off-base. I was honestly surprised to see this result, but WP:NCORP is indeed met by this organization. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is more off-base to blindly assume that WSJ "coverage" automatically contains "Independent Content". Can you point to those parts of each article which you consider as "Independent Content" that meets ORGIND? Cunard's point is based on the assumption that anything that isn't contained in quotes must therefore be independent content, but "dependent coverage" includes content which is "substantially based" on PR, announcements, quotes, interviews, etc. Rewording the information does not make the content independent. HighKing 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know how to respond to this. The WSJ is on the list of perennial sources at RSN, and there's no question about the subject of this article being somehow tied to an area where WSJ would have a conflict, such as News Corp. The WSJ is, along with the Financial Times and the New York Times, one of the most consistently reliable newspapers in the English-speaking world, and it has real reporting standards that go beyond repackaging press releases. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and subsequent commentators. gidonb (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jharkhand Andolankari Sangharsh Morcha

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

The sources are not reliable and do not provide in-depth coverage of the subject. It fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. GrabUp - Talk 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Jharkhand. GrabUp - Talk 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Poor to unreliable sources on the page. The organization has not received notice in secondary independent reliable sources to warrant a page. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to TV JOJ. ✗plicit 00:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JOJ WAU

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

Probably not notable. I could only find this: [26], [27], [28]. This probably does not constitute significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV JOJ. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with redirecting. Even though these are sister channels, TV JOJ is the primary one, and its article provides some information that may be of interest to ones looking up JOJ WAU. Janhrach (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not sure about the merits of the proposed redirect as the article lists that target page (TV JOJ) as the sister station to this one. Any additional thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nu Breed Music Group

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

Fails WP:CORP with no WP:RS. I can't find anything that even mentions this specific company and not the rap group (NuBreed). The official website doesn't even work. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline A7. Seems to be an old attempt to promote that was never caught. No sign of notability. I also nominated Tryfle for deletion. C F A 💬 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I searched Google, the Internet Archive, and Newspapers.com without finding anything of note. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC's sense of an important record label - has no notable artists, no significant cultural impact that I can discern. Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be part of a walled garden of NN music pages. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tryfle, etc. We are not a free web host for a for-profit music company and its non-notable musicians. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that these are indiscriminate lists that violate the principles at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. To ease people's navigation of related discussions that I also read when making this close, there is a currently ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 500-550 light-years that has not yet reached consensus, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 20–25 light-years (2nd nomination) reached a consensus of keep. Malinaccier (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 700-750 light-years

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

At the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 500-550 light-years, some argued that up to 650 ly would be a good arbitrary limit, others thought 100 ly would be better and argued for deletion. Instead of waiting for the outcome of that discussion, we now have a new list which goes even beyond this. So, the nomination and delete !vote arguments of that other discussion apply here as well, but even more so. Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason are:

My argument is that 1000-6000 or 6000-10,000 ly should be temporary maximum limit for now as the article before lack any Wolf-Rayet star or magnetar or pulsar and many many more interesting Star. Then why need to remove these things as it is rare and less and it is much much easy to have a list of stars to search and use than searching separate articles and if you think this is hard then think of people who had made Catalog of each star, I am not giving anyone pressure to do add or edit this, As edit and adding is a voluntary work not a toxic editing work. I also think that as time passes more new information will be added and as such no need of deliting things, But otherwise expanding this to at least 6000 ly. "Do not have fear of Hard work because of it is hard,but be happy as the work is hard and get the Plesure/essence of the work". So, My humble request is to have want to add not want to delete and do not delete the article. Abdullah1099 26 August 2024, 05:00 UTC

[...]the article before lack any Wolf-Rayet star or magnetar or pulsar and many many more interesting Star. A list of the nearest Wolf-Rayet stars or pulsars could be useful. Listing all stars by distance out to hundreds of light-years isn't. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no connection between these stars other than their distance from the Sun. Do we really need to know what stars lie between these distance ranges? It's a rather pointless list that is unlikely to see much use and will never be complete. Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, We need this kind of list and this is our work to do. My last request is to not become inhuman. Note:I already told that i am not adding red drawfs after 100 ly until and unless it is a special one. So, almost 60% of stars has gone then why the problem is coming at the first place. I had already taken the command to add and edited everything, So, No need to be in stress. If expanding above 500 or 1000 ly is pointless then making this type of list is also pointless at the first place even before 20-10 ly is also pointless. Abdullah1099 26 August 2024, 05:00 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of this segregated approach for neighborhood stars, so I don't disagree that a broad list of stars 10–20 ly distant is not all that useful either. But that consensus was reached when it was decided to eliminate comparable NavBox templates, so we live with it. The main issue here is where do you draw the line? These could just keep on expanding ad infinitum, and to what purpose? Those would be more poorly viewed articles that editors need to maintain every time there is new parallax data, and they become a waste of effort at some point. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here. Praemonitus (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete What is the point of reproducing the Gaia catalog here? Wikipedia doesn't need these lists, since they're just a copying from Gaia Vizier, which are going to be more frequently updated with new information, and are better vetted by experts. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these lists of star systems only make sense when restricted to a few light-years, such as <100 ly. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other AfD. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the Gaia findings, there are over 330,000 stars within 100 parsecs (330 ly), which converts to about 980,000 in the last category. Even just the notable stars are likely too extensive to catalog — in Ara alone, we have articles for HD 165493, V539 Arae, and HD 155035 within the range of the final list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My request is to not delete this type of article till 1000 ly and give me chance to make this list till 1000 ly.Abdullah1099 02:70 , 27 August 2024 (UTC). reply

Note: I've added List of star systems within 500-1000 light-years to this nomination, as it seems to be just an attempt to circumvent the deletion of the already nominated individual articles. Fram (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed because as separate articles and no. of stars are not enough, Please Fram, 21.Andromedae and other guys show some mercy and do not delete the article, I would not extend this list above 1000 ly. This is my humble request to you, Please show some mercy on me, as finding and making this kind of list is a tedious task taking almost 12 hours. Please do not delete the list of star systems within 500-1000 light-years, while you can delete other article like stars in 500-550,550-600,...,etc., as i already removed all stars name from that previously. please you all guys Show some mercy to me. It is fact that long list for 1000 ly or more can be useless but please do mercy on this one. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems excessive, even for me. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save - It is not that excessive. sir, please show some mercy on this article and on me. Abdullah1099 (Abdullah1099) 02:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah1099, this is not a persuasive argument for a deletion discussion. It's better to present a policy-based reason on why this subject is notable and should be kept rather than making an emotional appeal. Do the sources establish why these subjects are notable? Are there additional sources that could help? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save That i am want to tell that it has some sources and i will add more sources like Kepler space Telescope and Hipparcos space Telescope, etc data. I want time to do that almost 2-3 days. Abdullah1099 talk

07:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory and why duplicate a database that already well detailed somewhere else. scope_creep^Talk 09:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save- Yes, Wikipedia is a kind of informative directory. My Argument is that by making this list it can facilitate people to do there observation by using this list and i almost added all sources for references.Abdullah1099 talk 06:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Wikipedia is not a directory or a place for unsourced and indiscriminate collections of blank titles looking for an article. It does not amaze me that there are editors !voting "keep" when this kind of garbage violates pretty much all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is nothing of "encyclopedic value". -- Otr500 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Judoon. Malinaccier (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judoon

AfDs for this article:

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

The Judoon seem to lack significant coverage discussing the species as a whole. I found very little searching in Books and Scholar, with Books only turning up spin-off material from the series and Scholar only pulling trivial mentions or mentions of the episode "Fugitive of the Judoon," which only discuss the episode and not the species. News sources have a few hits, but they're mostly ROUTINE coverage (A character is returning, here's a few guides so you know who they are) and even then there's very few of them and the bulk of them are just plot summary with no significant reception of analysis of their role. I don't believe there's enough here for the Judoon to act as a standalone article. A viable AtD is a redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, where most of the relevant information regarding the Judoon is already present. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a well-written nomination encompassing both BEFORE and ATDs. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator's rationale, to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, where a perfectly adequate entry for the Judoon already exists. Mr Sitcom (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I see how this doesn't have enough coverage for standalone article, and I see a viable WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not really convinced that they are even notable enough for a list entry. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current Aliens list is relatively comprehensive in terms of covering monsters from throughout the series (Including a whole ton of one offs) and the Judoon recur with decent enough frequency within the series itself. They certainly don't meet notability but they certainly are a valid search target (Especially since Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) and Fugitive of the Judoon both heavily feature them, as well as Prisoner of the Judoon), meaning there is a valid rationale for readers wanting to find out what they are. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Kukanov

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

This is a basic stats stub and the Ukrainian Wikipedia article only has links to database sources. My own searches yielded UA Football, Pravda and Kramatorsk Post, none of which are even close to demonstrating WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 22:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Azarctic (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. By the way, is that source from Slovakia's Pravda or Ukraine's Pravda? Not mentioning the actual news name may sound confusing to some editors. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a local publication from Volgodonsk, Russia Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaho Osawa

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

Fails WP:BLP and NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign congressional endorsements

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

This article is a copy of a few sections from List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements, except that it already deviates from that article in content and has several referencing errors. There's no reason to have two copies of this information. Note that there's no discussion of a split of the primary article, therefore no concensus for such an action. mikeblas (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unclear why User:RayneVanDunem (notifying here since I don't see a talk message) copied the content to a new page but did not complete a split. If you want to do a bold WP:SPLIT without discussion, whatever, but you have to actually complete the job so there's not inconsistencies and duplication. Reywas92^Talk 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oop! I was adding a notification and then got distracted and I guess I didn't save it. Published now! -- mikeblas (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete does not apply here? A split may be useful as List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements is fairly long. C F A 💬 18:05, 26 August 2024 UTC)
Delete The split text should not be removed from the article because it can't be replaced by a concise summary. An article duplicating part of the list is not useful. Ben Azura (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King and Maxwell (book series)

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

Series fails WP:GNG, no reason for this to be a separate article from the individual books. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the consensus at NBOOKs earlier this year fiction book series inherent the notability from the books if the books themselves are notable and in fact it is often a preferred default to cover the books at a series level vs individual book level. In either case, valid navigational list. It's generally better to cover novels as a series first and then split when that gets long, not the reverse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) after a similar AfD: there was generally unanimous consensus for inherited series notability for fiction works (but no consensus on non-fiction, to which this does not apply). PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion does not seem to have been closed so it is not apparent there was any consensus. If you want to use it as an argument, please ask for a close at WP:Requests for closure _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. From what I remember from that discussion is that such pages make sense for series in which some but not all books have stand alone notability, to have a place we can discuss for example a book that has only one SIGCOV-meeting source. This does not seem to be the case here, as (at least for now) all books in the series have stand-alone articles which likely could be expanded. There is no need for this listing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of that discussion is perfectly clear and is not what you say it is. James500 (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was never closed is because we got sidetracked by non-fiction books, on which there was no consensus, and then the discussion just kind of petered out. My reading of that discussion shows a clear consensus for fiction book series and no ruling on non-fiction - which I think makes sense because non-fiction book series are usually publisher decided with no input from the authors, while fiction book series are usually a cohesive "whole". PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I don't really like the current format, but that's editable. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given that each book in the series has received at least one review from a reputable source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the author; the current article has zero independent notability (and WP:NOTINHERITED is a thing, as is WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This is just a listing of book in the series. The individual books may be notable, but that does not justify the need for a tiny article listing six books - this can totally be covered in the relevant section of author's bio citing his works. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The current article does not even provide a single source for the name of the series (it is a bit weird to have a series named after the last book in the series). To keep this, please show at least two sources which discuss the series in depth. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTINHERITED is an essay and is contradicted by several of our SNGs - of course many things aren't inherited, but some are. This is not a listing of statistics so I don't see INDISCRIMINATE as having any bearing.

The book's author calls it this, as does the publisher; it's named after the two main characters. As do several news outlets; "Baldacci's King and Maxwell series, as well as the other 20 or so novels he's written, could bring a core group of fans to the show. His books have sold more than 113 million copies." The series as a whole was also adapted into a TV series. I see it making perfect sense that the final book is called it because I assume the series title came first. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with many book reviews. And regarding the comments made above: The current article has 100% independent notability, and the series is 100% independently notable. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it has become clear that that essay does not actually reflect actual consensus. The essay employs illogical reasoning, and, in any event, this article is not actually within the scope of the essay. The article does not violate WP:NOT. The article is not just a listing of books. The present size of the article is irrelevant. The article can be expanded far beyond a listing and beyond its present size (WP:ATD). The need for the article is absolutely justified. The series could not possibly be covered in the author's biography, because there is no way that the coverage contained in a massive number of book reviews could be summarised in the author's biography without the article becoming WP:TOOBIG. The article cites 22 sources that discuss the series in enormous depth. James500 (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Mukherjee

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

No independent, reliable secondary sources found. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources includes primary, blogs such as Medium and unreliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 14:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the Wikipedia page submission. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and sourcing. However, the person is very popular in Indian animation studies scene, as you will see his books has been published by the Central Government of India, and he had also received several grants for research in this field. Further more independent and reliable secondary sources will be added to support the content and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards. Once again, your input is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to improving the page with more robust references.

Best regards. Kolkata.cult (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolkata.cult: Please share reliable independent sources here, as I am unable to find any, which is the reason behind the nomination. Books published by the Central Government do not inherently make a person notable, nor are these awards notable enough to make the subject notable. I also noticed that you removed the AfD template from the article, which was reverted. Please refrain from removing the template in the future. GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that books published by the Central Government may not inherently establish a person's notability. However, it's important to note that the book was inaugurated by M. Venkaiah Naidu, the former Vice President of India, which adds a layer of significance to the author's achievements. Additionally, several sources have been added to demonstrate the person's credibility as an educator and artist. If there are specific types of reliable, independent sources that you are looking for, please let me know, and I would be happy to assist in gathering them. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I apologize for the oversight regarding the AfD template. I will ensure it is not removed again. Regards. Kolkata.cult (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from WP:COI or WP:UPE creation of the article, simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like cover letter and resume for a job. All the sources on the page are primary, unreliable and paid publicity. The subject has not made a significant impact and did not make any achievement worthy of notice nationally or internationally. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Bondi

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

None of the references in this article about a lawyer show significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add; I have removed two existing references which did not mention him. Article has been tagged as orphan for six years, notability and advert for two years, and was recently tagged with possible CoI. It was also recently cut down by another editor from a longer version with no sources, but the quality of those sources is not better than the existing ones. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I looked at this I thought it would be a straightforward senior-lawyer vanity page. I tend to agree that on his career alone, he gets nowhere towards WP:GNG despite having been prominent. There are a few borderline articles like this and this talking about him taking on clients and a court judgment relating to conflict of interest. But nothing that profiles him in the way this article does that doesn't seem to be relying on a press release and CV. Note that the article doesn't mention he's Pam Bondi's brother but that's not inherited. He also got coverage for endowing a scholarship.
Where there is substantial coverage about him is this WSJ article about his 330 acre property and graveyard (someone else's family, also interviewed). The story is also here credited to WSJ.
Cumulatively does this get him across the line? I'm doubtful but would be interested to see further views. Oblivy (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To improve the reliability of sources, it's essential to move beyond press releases, biographies/resumes, and articles drafted by the subject. The apparent CoI editing may be the most problematic. If the subject met WP:GNG, none of the above would be needed. Regarding the WSJ article about the property, the subject is a self-described contributor to WSJ. 2601:18E:C47E:CA30:28D2:4D3:69FF:69B0 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional evaluation of the sources brought up here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and based on my own standards. I don’t see him even having a single factor. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon consideration, notability isn't shown in the article or by anything I could find elsewhere. The house with the graveyard might be notable but that's not inherited to him. Oblivy (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Horton

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

Research fellow at Oxford Brookes, not reaching WP:NACADEMIC; Scopus publication output is consistent with their career stage. Has appeared in the media (including podcasts) as an expert with others, but this dosn't seem sufficient for independent notability (notability isn't inherited). Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes they do pass WP:NACADEMIC with many highly cited papers and advancing research in a dramatically under-researched field, which is why they also have been cited by several newspapers (actually just to double check, found another two now that I've added to the article, so this also strengthens the WP:GNG case), despite their age in the field. They especially got a lot of recent attention as a result of their critique paper on the Cass Review. They are an expert themself on transgender studies, which is why they have been invited to talk as an expert on various podcasts, and as the article said, including them solo in this deep-dive on Social Transition, Puberty Blockers and the Cass Review, so I don't know what the stab about inherited notability is there. Im trying not to get upset anymore, but the amount of time I've had to come and defend women and non-binary people at AfD is really apparent of how alive the gender bias on Wikipedia still is. Raladic (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, should the consensus below end up with deletion, since the article was AfD'd as part of NPP of a new article, I request per WP:ATD-I, that the article be moved into draft space (main draft, or alternatively back to my user space where I drafted it) instead, since so far it seems from the 3 delete votes below that it may be more a case of WP:TOSOON with potential rather than outright non-notability. Raladic (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Raladic (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Raladic (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above - their many cited papers (that are cited by several newspapers and on Wikipedia itself) shows that they pass GNG and NACADEMIC. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this fresh PhD with a handful of citations in what I believe to be a mid to high citation field. GNG is plausible, but I didn't find substantial coverage of the subject in the news -- the ABC piece cited does not mention them, and publishing an opinion piece in SciAm does not contribute so much to notability. Will follow in case better evidence of notability arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Early-career researcher with a citation record to match their position; not enough citations for WP:PROF#C1 and no other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with the nominator. Scopus and Google scholar do not indicate high citations. Note I have removed the VIAF and LCCN ids from the wikidata record as these appear to be a different Calvin Horton who worked on pay plans in 1967/1972 [29]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. notability not yet attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, too soon. The statements above that they are highly cited does not verify, Google Scholar shows an h-factor of 10 which is far too small. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of citations is not enough to satisfy WP:NPROF and the sources I could find on Google (e.g., podcast interviews) were not independent and thus do not satisfy WP:GNG. I suspect in the future the subject might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but right now I do not see it. Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Water Dog

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

~~I believe that this 18-year-old article is, in fact, a very long lived hoax.~~ The article itself features no sources that even mention the "Moscow Water Dog". The article for, and every source regarding, the Russian Black Terrier (which this article claims is in part derived from the Moscow Water Dog) do not mention the Water Dog at all. I conducted a review of online sources; the only sources I can find that mention this supposed breed are purely AI-generated slop that has combed from Wikipedia, and a work of fiction that uses this article as inspiration.. There is as far as I can tell absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the MWD or any attempt at breeding it, so I believe the article is an intentional hoax added to Wikipedia when quality control was much lower (2006!) which has somehow survived until now. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Russia. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this subject appears in other languages on Wikipedia, such as the country of origin. Can you check the Russian Wikipedia for potential sources? I am not opposed to deletion or keeping but I am opposed to speedy deletion. The creator for the article also was a prolific editor in animal-related articles, which makes me think it is unlikely to be a hoax. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an intentional hoax for this editor is most unlikely. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I completely forgot to check other languages. The Russian article does feature a few sources that seem to confirm the water dog's existance so that takes hoax off the table!

Regardless, I'm not convinced there's enough evidence to support the article remaining, as as far as I can tell the dog was never a registered breed and there's very little coverage of it, and even less in English. The sources that do mention it purely mention it in passing when discussing either Red Star Kennels or the Black Terrier.

Russian wikipedia source one

source two CoconutOctopus talk 18:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoconutOctopus, in honor of Yoman, would you mind striking the hoax text from the intro? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CoconutOctopus for striking. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, as well. Yomangani wrote FAs Laika and Beagle (among many others), so he seems to have loved the critters, and wasn't the sort to create a hoax; he knew dogs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep: search books.google.com, scroll past the first page of results (those are mostly all Wikipedia mirrors), and there are scores of legit books discussing this breed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep these sources seem to be enough to support existence and some notability: [30] [31]

I can look further if you want to see if more sources exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do Traumnovelle. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[32] mentioned here, might just be trivial.

[33] mentioned here, not a notable mention but a good source to show this isn't a hoax and the Kutepov source it mentions might be good coverage of the breed.

[34]

I presume there will be greater coverage in Russian sources too. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards (talk · contribs), I see on this page that you speak Russian; might you have time to see if there are usable sources in the Russian article, for a save for our old friend and FA writer, Yomangani? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKC Gazette has enough in the viewable snippett to indicate AKC took it seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, the sources on the Russian Wikipedia page are largely mediocre. This one from The National Kennel Club on the Black Russian Terrier seems authoritative: [35] Google provides a reasonable translation of the page. The breed (московский водолаз) is mentioned in the first paragraph. Graham Beards (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of proposed and potential sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Nomura

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

Fails WP:BLP and NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Fails notability criteria. Article, as a BLP, must have better sourcing. Significant coverage in reliable, and independent sources is not evident. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuichi Shimogami

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

Fails WP:BLP and NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Eaton (actor)

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

Non-notable actor; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Roles have been minor parts. Sources are either primary (the actor's Instagram page) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of an upcoming supporting role in a single episode of an Outlander spinoff. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV to support GNG. Contested PROD so bringing to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON (if ever). Person has had minor parts in various TV series, although I cannot find sources that confirm even those. There seems to be a new series that he will act in, but that is in the future, when notability can be re-evaluated. Lamona (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too soon. Right now I see a single reliable source, Variety. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn to review Newspapers.com. (non-admin closure)‎ Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Crossing

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

At present, many of the Nancy Drew and/or Hardy Boys books have their own articles, though these articles consist only of primary references and plot summaries. I have not been able to find book reviews or any individual coverage of most of these books. This book (and those batched below) are part of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys Super Mystery series. I recommend redirecting all there. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

A Crime for Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shock Waves (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dangerous Games (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Resort (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buried in Time (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mystery Train (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Best of Enemies (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High Survival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Year's Evil (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tour of Danger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spies and Lies (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tropic of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hits and Misses (The Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Courting Disaster (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil in Amsterdam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Passport to Danger (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hollywood Horror (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danger Down Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Target for Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Secrets of the Nile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Question of Guilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Islands of Intrigue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Murder on the Fourth of July (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
High Stakes (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nightmare in New Orleans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Out of Control (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Exhibition of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
At All Costs (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Royal Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Operation Titanic (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Process of Elimination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment I feel this may be a WP:TRAINWRECK. A few of these books are definitely notable. This is too many to evaluate at once. Unless we want to go with the series-first approach we discussed at NBOOK earlier this year, which, fair, so I'm not going to vote keep yet (funnily enough someone else just voted the exact opposite kind of thing for deletion). PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: I did a search for the first two books in this list: "Double Crossing" and "A Crime for Christmas". For "Double Crossing", I quickly came across at least 2 reviews (Evening Express, Philadelphia Daily News). For "A Crime for Christmas", I found another two reviews (The Daily Herald, Tulsa World). Based on these results, I am not confident that an in-depth-enough BEFORE has been conducted for each of these books to delete 30 articles at once. C F A 💬 21:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The relevance of the sources proposed by Karl Twist has not been substantially addressed or refuted. Sandstein 06:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Dust

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

The sources listed here provide little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of the band. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the group has released records on three notable record labels, BASF, Trend, Uni. Plus they have two notable members, Alan King and Paul Carrack.
Karl Twist (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not WP:INHERITED, saying a band is notable because it was involved in notable things is almost the definition of this, although these may be a good place to look for sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most times when there are two or more notable people in a band that's a consideration of notability. Another consideration is that the band or artist has had two record albums released on two notable record labels. So using the Inherited thing is not really right. And this band would be triply notable if I could get hold of the continental rock magazines and books because that's where they were more popular. If you have a look in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Warm Dust section, you can see that I have dropped in a link. They made a splash when they were seen by Pope Paul VI. (I think that was the correct Pope)
Karl Twist (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous Karl is making valid arguments under WP:BAND#c5 and c6. That isn't an absolute case against deletion, but it isn't fallacious. Mach61 13:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might look again later but there's this (page 13) in Disc and Music Echo. A lot of what I'm finding merely mentions the band once. toweli (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Toweli, Hi thanks for the Disc and Music Echo "Warm Dust `back' Lennon" article link. That got me searching and I've found a few more articles now. I found the Record Mirror, October 9, 1971 article "Warm Dust slam the British mass media" on page 23, Melody Maker, July 25, 1970, News in Brief, Warm Dust section, Page 35, Melody Maker, May 1, 1971 "No Dust on peace show" article on Page 4, and the Melody Maker, January 30, 1971 article, War, Peace and Warm Dust article by Andrew Means on Page 11. So we have five articles on the group plus there's other stuff in newspaper archives that I can't access. One has to subscribe to them.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; in response to my above comment defending Karl, I note again that WP:NMUSIC is not absolute (conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept). Aside from the stunt with Pope John, this band seems to be a footnote in the Paul Carrack story; I can't find anything usable for WP:GNG purposes, nor even WP:RS that go into enough depth for me to think this article should stick around. An article should never have to rely on unreliable blogs or be composed of facts from a bunch of miscellanious stray mentions in RS, which is all this band has. Mach61 19:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Warm Dust to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if a consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider the option of redirecting rather than deleting? This way we can preserve the history and links. There are a number of possibilities. There is Paul Carrack in his Career section, Ace, and there's Alan King etc. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Karl Twist we can't really do that, see WP:XY Mach61 12:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we can. It's done all the time and there is already a section for the Warm Dust group on Carrack's page. I didn't make it. Karl Twist (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect--He's always been dismissive of them, but brief mentions of the band have appeared in RS on Carrack for five decades. A 1982 Rolling Stone profile mentions that their "major [sic] to fame was a psychedelic antiwar LP". The only early 1970s things I found were short articles or reviews in Kensington and Chelsea News, Daily Post (Liverpool), and The Oregon Journal. Caro7200 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sources linked by Karl Twist. toweli (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the sources identified in this discussion by Karl Twist and Caro 7200 including reliable newspapers and magazines that together enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's sufficient coverage now referenced to evidence the notability of the subject and to sustain an article. Good work by @Karl Twist. ResonantDis_tortion 12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, @ResonantDistortion:, thanks. It was a bit of a job. It was @Toweli: with the Disc and Music Echo "Warm Dust `back' Lennon" article link. That got me keen to find more. I realize that I needed to search deeper. And then I found stuff that I had missed. Cheers
  Karl Twist (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Term is apparently used in astronomy, that's all Gbooks brings up. I don't find any sources otherwise, and what's been presented is brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Just a post to show where I'm up to so far as per the table below.

Update so far
Publication	Date	Page	Title	Notes	Link
Disc and Music Echo	June 6, 1970	13	Warm Dust `back' Lennon	article about Warm Dust	link
Melody Maker	July 25, 1970	35	News in Brief, Warm Dust	Warm Dust section in article 92 w	link
Melody Maker	January 30, 1971	11	War, Peace and Warm Dust by Andrew Means	article about Warm Dust	link
Melody Maker	May 1, 1971	Page 4	No Dust on peace show	article about Warm Dust	link
Record Mirror	October 9, 1971	23	Media Apathy, Warm Dust slam the British mass media	article about Warm Dust	link
Beat Instrumental	April 1972	14	Profile Alan Solomon	Profile on Warm Dust saxophonist, keyboard player. A good deal of it is about Warm Dust	link
Sunday Mirror	Sunday 08 November 1970	19	White Hope for Today	article about Warm Dust and their white poppy stunt	link
Record Mirror	May 16, 1970	14	New Albums, WARM DUST: Warm Dust (Trend TNLS 700)	review on Warm Dust album, And It Came To Pass mistakenly referred to as Warm Dust	link
Record Mirror	December 26, 1970	Page 15	Mirrorpick/LPs, WARM DUST: "Peace For Our Time." - Trend 6480 001]	review on Peace for Our Time album	link
Record Mirror	April 24, 1971	Page 18	Mirrorpick, PETER JONES ON THE NEW SINGLES, WARM DUST: It's A Beautiful Day (Trend)	short review by Peter Jones on Warm Dust single, "It's a Beautiful Day"	link

OK, the first seven in the table are articles about Warm Dust. There's another one in the British Newspaper archive but I can't read the title. All reliable sources. I may have a look around later to see if I can fine more.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything particular strong, but maybe an WP:ATD is possible. For your above suggestion, which talk about Paul Carrack specifically? IgelRM (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi IgelRM. Well, Paul Carrack is the man people think of most when they talk about Warm Dust. Carrack was also a member of the Milwaukee Coasters who according to John Surguy was the band that Warm Dust evolved out of. See: John Surguy - Warm Dust Interview — The Self Portrait Gospel. And I imagine this is the same UK group that recorded for the Pama Records label. As Carrack was a major player in the band it would make sense that a re-direct would go to him if the Warm Dust page was somehow deleted.
That being said, I can't see how it should be deleted when with the seven articles I provided in the table above prove that it has passed the below,

Wikipedia:BAND#C1 with it being the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable" etc. etc.
Wikipedia:BAND#C5 as they have had releases on BASF, Metronome, Stateside, Trend and Uni labels. So that should satisfy the requirement of having "released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" etc. etc.
Wikipedia:BAND#C6 as Paul Carrack, Alan King are notable. And quite likely Keith Bailey would be too. So that satisfies the requirement of Warm Dust being "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians".
Wikipedia:BAND#C10 as they have been on the Beat-Club show where they performed the Richie Havens classic "Indian Rope Man" and "Warm Dust Worm Dance" Parts 1 & 2. They have been on multiple other German and possibly other Euro country television broadcasts. That could satisfy " performance in a television show or notable film". It is possible that they may even qualify for Wikipedia:BAND#C12 but I can't access info on German or Dutch TV shows.

Now, it's been said elsewhere on this page that the article relied on "unreliable blogs or be composed of facts from a bunch of miscellanious stray mentions". Well, I've gotten rid of all of those so-called "unreliable", possibly bar one or two which are in unison with a reliable source. And none of the seven articles about Warm Dust in the above table I provided are stray mentions. They are articles about the band. And the other three are reviews on their work. Definitely not stray mentions! And page 16 of the 28 November, 1970 Fleetwood Mac article preserved on the website about the lovely Joni Mitchell is not stray mention either. While it appears to be no more than 100 words, the title is misleading. It is more about Warm Dust than it is Fleetwood Mac! And the The Encyclopedia of Popular Music Warm Dust entry which I haven't added to the page is something that I would call useful at the very least.

As you can see, this is what the page looked like, or you can see it alternatively here (Example 1) when the AFD tag was applied.
When I cleaned it up a fair bit and added better refs, it now looks like this, or you can see it alternatively here (Example 2)

Well, I can say that there's more than sufficient proof now that the article qualifies as a keep.

Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Karl these citations are more than brief mentions. Furthermore I've just added an album review in an independent German periodical here. Evidence that further coverage is highly likely in non-English sources. ResonantDis_tortion 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of music press and some general press coverage about the band from 1970-1972; I've just added another ref about meeting the Pope from The Times. Adam Sampson (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ keep: nominator has changed opinion to keep with no dissenting opinions, effectively withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Wyckoff

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

Short BLP created by an experienced editor. Tagged for notability as part of a NPP in JULY 2024, no improvements made. Nothing in the page or that I can find which proves notability. Certainly not WP:NPROF, reviews of books are in science journals so do not support WP:AUTHOR. Delete unless someone can edit to demonstrate notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Geography. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I do not know of any policy or guideline that says science journals are not periodicals for WP:NAUTHOR purposes. I see four substantial reviews of authored work, plus one of edited work, which I think is (weakly) enough. The lifetime achievement award helps support. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (as nomination I am changing my opinion). The lifetime achievement award is exactly what should have been in the original article to demonstrate that his peers recognise him as notable. It was not in the article when notability was questioned, only added after the AfD, and did not show up on my Google search. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Kustinskiy

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

Despite his 12 minutes of football for Dinamo Brest, I can find no significant coverage of him at all in Russian nor Belarusian Cyrillic. Belarusian Wikipedia has no decent sources either. No sign of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a hopeless case. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikail Akhmedov

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

His only claim to notability is playing less than one minute in a cup game. Aside from that, I found Chechnya Today, which mentions him running a training session for kids at a local school, which, on its own, is not enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, which require significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7. In this day and age, this can not even be counted as a "claim" to notability. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Sesyavin

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

Sesyavin only ever played 13 mins in a cup match for Rotor's senior team, which is not a particularly strong claim to notability. I found Rambler, which mentions him once in the match report and once in the squad list, and Sport 34, which only mentions him three times in the match report itself. This is far from enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2020–21 FC Rotor Volgograd season, no notability. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I felt I was too quick not to make further research on this subject. I later found out that the source was a newspaper. (non-admin closure) Gabriel (……?) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Maris College, Port Harcourt

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

A school that fails to meet the general notability guideline. The first source was from a site that claim to be a Nigerian newspaper which they are not so therefore not reliable. Aside that source there is nothing again found about this school. Gabriel (……?) 12:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Christianity. Gabriel (……?) 12:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't appreciate the lack of BEFORE here. I found too many hits on Google Books, Web archives, etc, for this to not pass WP:GNG. This statement The first source was from a site that claim to be a Nigerian newspaper which they are not so therefore not reliable is also utterly incorrect. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Shcherbin

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

Was presumed notable for 28 mins in a cup match. Shcherbin has played in the lower levels since and there is no sign of passing WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Infokam, which mentions him scoring a hat-trick in the Volgograd Region Championship, which I can only imagine is a very low level in the Russian football league structure. This is far from enough to pass our guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2020–21 FC Rotor Volgograd season, no notability. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. No reason presented to object to this ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of El Salvador, London

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

No secondary sources, no content other than a directory listing. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and El Salvador. AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as a {{R to list entry}} per just about every other embassy in London that has been nominated. There is no content to merge but this is a plausible search term with directly relevant content in a list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a 1 line article that merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer deletion over redirection? Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. A somewhat close case, but the consensus is that existing sources do not satisfy WP:GNG. Malinaccier (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimon Lidsey

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. All sources provided are primary except the Eurosport article. When I read that article it contains no mention of Lidsey. A search for sources only comes up with speedway related sources which are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A world under 21 champion and rides in the highest speedway league possible. Two secondary sources have been added. Racingmanager (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd source added is a 1 line mention not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"world under 21 champion and rides in the highest speedway league possible". Neither of these facts guarantee inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacdFarmer (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Topic banned from deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)(Editor was topic banned after they made this comment. Please do not strike comments unless they are by a sock Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:SPORTBASIC (e.g. [36][37][38]) C F A 💬 23:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. [39][40] are a routine race results stories while [41] is an interview with little independent prose from the author. Alvaldi (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 paragraphs of independent coverage outside of the interview transcript in that article. Winning a race is, by definition, not routine. There's also this which is fairly in-depth. C F A 💬 14:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA The interview on sportsbloggare.com is from a blog which does not go towards notability as it is a self published source per WP:BLOGS. The mcnews.com.au article is a rehash of an article from the governing body of motorcycle sport in Australia, which is not independent of the subject. Neither of those sources go towards establishing notability. Alvaldi (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Didn't notice that. Delete. C F A 💬 16:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Puller

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

This seems overly advertisal and also doesn't seem especially notable. Lastly, I am suspicious of the sources. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sports, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources provided are independent of Dog Puller or the brands that created it. This sport has received no attention from anyone that isn't trying to advertise it. Recon rabbit 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that some amount of the text appears to be closely paraphrased or directly translated from the sources and the USA Dog Puller Federation Facebook group. Recon rabbit 14:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook, Indiana

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

A spot NE of Jackson Pond where the road goes one way and the railroad the other after running in parallel for some distance. Beyond that I have nothing except the one year post office, which is never a good sign. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep - I Added Quite a few Sources, It Seems Like this Was a Fairly Populated Settlement, I also Found two well records for sandy hook. (though i did not add them as a source :https://legacy.igws.indiana.edu/pdms/WellSearch.cfm) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to meet WP:NPLACE. C F A 💬 23:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pogo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Sources are unreliable or do not talk about the programming as a whole. Many of the sources are primary cited to the channel itself. There is currently only eight active programs which can be merged into the main Pogo (TV channel). In fact, those programs don't even appear to be original programming so they originate with another network. As far as the argument that the list serves a purpose, there is already a category for its original programming which serves such purpose, especially since the shows listed here are mainly originating from other networks. CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A standard WP:SPLITLIST in the Category:Lists of television series by network. Sourcing can be improved.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list has big problem with unreliable sources and that is why I did not opt for merge either. I went through the sources that was quite a pain in itself and found the unreliability of sources one after the other including deadlinks. If some content has to be merged with Pogo_(TV_channel)#Programming then it needs to have reliable secondary independent source to show that the channel broadcasts these programmes. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a clean up issue in my opinion, implying some work. For example, various pages redirect to that list, some after AfD decisions (example, where yourself !voted to redirect to that list, fwiw, in June this year). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before cross check was on AFD Mighty Raju and not the list. Now that it has come to light that the list has source issue after cross checking the references through this AFD, I would not redirect any page to it. RangersRus (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Most of the sources are just Waybacks of the network's schedule which violates PRIMARY, and the network doesn't originate new content itself, just purchases programming. Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the network doesn't originate new content itself, just purchases programming: no, that is not true. See my comment above and Category:Pogo_(TV_channel)_original_programming -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Due to lack of participation Malinaccier (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Bravo Moreno

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Mexican volleyball player to warrant a stand-alone article, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Possible redirect targets include Mexico men's national volleyball team and 2022 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship squads. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was elected as the best at his position (libero) at a continental championship - seems to match "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level." from the linked sports criteria. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The key word here is likely, as in the subject is likely to have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources by achieving this sporting success. No such coverage has been found. JTtheOG (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship squads: Like the nom I don't see the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation should better sources emerge. Let'srun (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If someone wants to actively work on this to improve it, I'm happy to draftify. Star Mississippi 02:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Vada Vala

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

Simply fails WP:FILMMAKER. Sources are not helpful toward establishing notability on this subject, the ones from WP:BEFORE are not helpful either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 3 notable films directed (and WP:CREATIVE with 2 written). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. None of his work is widely cited and significantly well-known that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Only exception is film Samandar that has barely two reviews and I could not find any more. The subject has not won significant critical attention for his work. The sources on the pages lack significant coverage on the career of the subject and are more on actor'debut, title track, unveiling of teaser, claim of audience reaction, unreliable source like filmytown.com and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it needs more sources. Xegma(talk) 14:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waris Islam

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

Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Theatre, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notability and vaguely promotional article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vera Monroig

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A mayor of Adjuntas needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO to merit a standalone article, Monroig does not pass any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Puerto Rico. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination above, and because this is essentially one big BLP violation En Español, wrapped in a burrito of OR. He was convicted of some unmentionable behavior towards an employee, but that’s the only sourced data in the stub. Having a single source, even if reliable (which I don’t concede), is by definition original research, which Wikipedia has never published. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, he's been involved in lawsuits [42], but nothing terribly notable from what I could understand of it.. Sourcing used in the article now seems unhelpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 11:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punam Devi

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknow? (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the local level of office are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the depth of substance, and the depth of referencing available to support it, that can be written about their work. But this isn't even close to the level of substance, or the quality of sourcing, that would be required. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources do not provide significant coverage, and the subject fails to meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG and the additional notability guideline for politicians WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaeddin Qassemi

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

The only sources for this WP:BLP1E refer to a stunt over five years ago where he claimed to have produced a water powered car - a claim which was, needless to say, never independently validated. Note the conspiracist language at the end. Water powered cars are, of course, impossible: it takes more energy to split hydrogen from oxygen than you get from the hydrogen, because the laws of thermodynamics are a thing. We can describe notable bollocks (see Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car), but we can't do it without reality-based sources, and the sources here are (a) not good and (b) not truly independent, since all reference the same stunt and take his claims at face value. It is inconceivable (and yes that word does mean what I think it means) that this would not have had ongoing coverage if it were genuine. And by "ongoing coverage", I mean at the very least an all expenses paid trip to Stockholm. In the end, this is just another instance of the water powered car hoax, with its attendant conspiracy theory. Any content online is always related back to the same initial stunt. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a lot of WP:PUFFERY in the article itself, so when I went to go look at sources, they looked pretty low quality, especially for the accolades that would have issues attributing notability. Like Guy alludes to, there are some independent coverage issues, and this ultimately doesn't reach WP:SUSTAINED coverage in depth needed for notability. I thought it was worth seeing if they could reach notability through WP:FRINGEN, but I'm not seeing that here either. KoA (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markíza Dajto

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

I previously PRODded the article with the rationale being "Not notable - no in-depth independent coverage". It was deprodded by Mushy Yank with a note to look at the Slovak article. There indeed are some sources, but the only claims they make about this channel are:

that it became available on DVB-T (with some technical details), and
that Towercom resumed broadcasting it.

These two claims hardly constitute significant coverage, therefore I am renominating this article for deletion, this time at AfD. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:SPLITLIST of Markiza, a major Slovak network.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a list. It is an ordinary article about the channel – it is list-like because of its low quality. The article on Markíza also shouldn't be list-like; it even carries the "not a directory" improvement template. Janhrach (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPLITLIST is not only about stricto sensu list articles, but anyway, yes, the article is a list. It has an introduction but it is very much in the list format, as yourself admit. As for the rest, feel free to discuss it on the article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why would this article count as SPLITLIST. The article Markíza is about a different, sister, channel; not about the company (at least primarily).

Also, quoting from WP:NLIST: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." Janhrach (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Markíza as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 11:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Institute of Medical Sciences, Kasna

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

Article has existed for >8 years with only primary source. Search for mentions only show trivial coverage, such as listings not accompanied by commentary. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could be wrong, but it does not appear to award degrees; their website seems to specifically list MBBS and DNB courses without calling them degrees. The article is entirely unsourced and doesn't appear to be covered by any secondary sources. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are similar to Government Institute of Medical Sciences, Kasna page. Please nominate them to be deleted if you find it needed. Thanks.

14.139.183.119 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't randomly add articles in the middle of an AFD when you are not the nominator. This doesn't qualify as a bundled nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD doesn't consider groups of unrelated articles like the above. All need to be judged on their own merits, not mass nominated like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. No sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nellore district. Both Keep views were amenable to a merger, and none of the Delete views voiced a valid objection to this as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nellore Airport

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

Always been a proposed airport, no developments. Appears to be TOOSOON. Can be recreated if the airport actually reaches construction or approval stages. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "proposed" project is still going through designs, plans, bids, contracts, budget, approvals and is too early to warrant a standalone Page on this airport. Case of WP:TOOSOON and not notable as of yet. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. Charliehdb (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Dagadarthi or Nellore. This appears to have attracted a lot of coverage already, but if it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article yet we should merge to one of the above articles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge) - there's extensive coverage of the project's multi-year development saga. ~~Note WP:CRYSTAL~~ Eg, 2018: Centre okays 3 airports in AP; efforts on to expedite tenders, 2020: A.P. govt. cancels Nellore international airport concession agreement, 2022:Works for Nellore airport to begin in April, 2024: Govt. proposes to set up four new airports in Andhra Pradesh. FWIW TOOSOON is not really relevant (and is an essay, WP:CRYSTAL is policy), notability is available because of the attempt to develop the airport. However, WP:NOPAGE is useful to recall and agree with Thryduulf, merging to one of the local towns could be appropriate to the point when (if) construction officially begins. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Windhoek

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

Article merely confirms it exists. No third-party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Germany. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --92.77.57.69 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information that Germany has an embassy in Windhoek is already stated in the article Germany–Namibia relations. There isn't enough info for a separate article on the embassy. I note, however, that a search in Google brings up a long-ish generated info box that, of course, includes this text. I don't know what will happen after this is deleted but I don't think that we should be writing for Google's displays. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Germany-Namibia relations already states that it exists, and it is not notable enough to have its own article. Hlsci (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities

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

Very unclear whether this group of "lower communities" which includes e.g. Sat-Sudra (considered higher castes), is a commonly accepted grouping with a clear definition, or some division created specifically for this article. Also not clear if the topic (Sanskrit texts by caste division) is a topic of study and whether these people are grouped together scholarly, or if this is some novel WP:SYNTH list. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, Hinduism, and India. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article of Sat-Sudra is very badly written. I have suggested an edit but my edit is reverted. Please check. Sat-shoodras are only higher than other shudras (asat shudras) and lower than every other varna. That is, Lower than Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishya. See the note on sat-shoodra there. Caste boundaries can't be clearly defined due to their complexities. The main castes are mentioned themselves which are considered lower nonetheless. Sat-shoodra only highlights their status in varna system. This is a dynamic list and more people from other communities can be added by everyone. The topic of debate has always been whether lower communities have contributed to sanskrit among scholars. This article helps in breaking the myths of denial of education and lack of scholarship among lower communities and foster inclusivity. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and WP:RS. Almost 60 % of the sources are unreliable. Andhraportal, wisdomlib, jainqq.org, sanskritkosha,sndp, sanskritdocuments etc., are not RS. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources, which I find none here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All references to Wisdomlib, Jainqq.org and sanskritkosha are of published books available on those sources. Which are both reliable and accurate. All the information provided are as accurate as possible. You can challenge any misinformation in talk page. This has always been the matter of debate among scholars to assess the contribution of lower communuties in Sanskrit literature. See this. Mohit Dokania (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Lower communities" is ambiguous. Are Vaishyas and Reddys lower communities? The list is a product of WP:SYTH and fails WP:NLIST.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiol Rexhepi

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only stat sites and passing mentions can be found. Modest career with 90 minutes in Albania's highest league and 41 games in the semi-pro second tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG-- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 22:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG or SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samet Ruqi

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Modest career with 5 games in Albania's highest league (according to Worldfootball) and several seasons in the semi-pro second tier. The best sources I could find were this short interview and this short transactional news piece. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – An unsourced stub without interlanguage wiki to copy over. Even if corresponding article on Albanian Wikipedia existed, it may be worse-written than here. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bland diet. as the nominator argues againat a redirect to BRAT diet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRAM diet

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

An article about a medical diet treatment. Dismally sourced, and flagged as such since its creation in 2010. I can't find any reference that remotely meets WP:MEDRS (everything online seems to be a mirror or rewording of this article). I asked for expert help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#CRAM diet to no effect. If this was in any way a notable treatment, surely there would be some worthwhile mention online for it. I don't think we should redir to the similar BRAT diet, which is much better sourced. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 06:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BRAT diet. Specifically, a brief mention of CRAM's existence, which could be sourced to this book, would meet the Wikipedia:Editing policy goals of providing information, without needing enough sources to support a whole article. This could be a single sentence in BRAT diet#Alternatives, which already mentions the CRAM diet, and we could provide an equally brief description of the BRATTY diet sourced to this book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BRAT diet or bland diet, take your pick. It is primarily mentioned in unreliable sources (blogs and some fringe "medical" books). Besides the book linked by WhatamIdoing, the only RS I could find it mentioned in is this 2003 book on pediatric nursing[43] and an accompanying manual for an earlier edition of that book. I'm sure there are more mentions of it in similar medical books, but it's clearly not independently notable. I will note that the current mention of the CRAM diet in the Alternatives section of the BRAT diet article fails verification, and given that I can't find any sources that directly link/compare BRAT vs CRAM I think merging with the bland diet article is preferable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to merging it into bland diet. Merging BRAT diet there would probably also be good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting. I don’t oppose a Merge with the caveat that it could be re-created in the future with more research. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BRAT diet or bland diet. Just based off a quick google search it is mostly talked about by unreliable sources. Right now it doesn't seem like there is enough sources to build an article on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Inner Mongolia

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

As the article's first sentence states, Inner Mongolia does not have a flag. The article has not been reliably sourced for almost six years and this is unlikely to change because no notable flag has been claimed as the "flag of Inner Mongolia". The scope of the article is more akin to "flags used in Inner Mongolia" or "flags used by Inner Mongolian organisations", as there is a gallery of organisational flags and a brief write-up on two organisations'. However, none of this is sourced, and the actual scope of the article is extremely limited anyways, being nothing more than a mirror of a Wikimedia Commons gallery. Yue🌙 06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, China, and Mongolia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second prose paragraph almost perfectly matches the user-generated source at Flags of the World, the sole general reference. I don't think we need this article, but since I'm aware of my own personal bias against flags I can't trust myself to opine here from a basis in policy. Folly Mox (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Although it was interesting to learn that "The red fire simply symbolizes fire". Geschichte (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Germany–Moldova relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Germany, Chișinău

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article is merely a 1 line sentence which confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --92.77.57.69 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there a possible Redirect or Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Germany–Moldova relations: I couldn't find any enough sources on Google News, many of whom are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if anyone find something ping me. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Germany-Moldova relations: Most of the time embassies by themselves are not notable per WP:N, but can be merged with the aforementioned article, which is notable and can contribute to the article. Hlsci (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Peyton Place (TV series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Schuster

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

Only cites one source of dubious reliability. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peyton Place (TV series) where she is already mentioned; there does not appear to be a "characters of" article. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per WP:ATD. She's mentioned at the main article, and editors can decide how much she needs to be discussed (ideally with verifiable sources). Shooterwalker (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chol-ho

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also a stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 2006 Asian Games – Men's team squads. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Chol-man

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football at the 2006 Asian Games – Men's team squads

Lâm (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear craze

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

Concerns about WP:GNG as raised earlier on the talk page by another user. In short, the article has unclear and indefinite inclusion criteria that's not backed up by secondary coverage. An example of this is the false equivalence of 'clear' beverages and transparent consumer electronics, which seem to be very distinct trends unified only by implication in this article. The article reads like a list of random clear products rather than articulating what made the trend a "craze". Just not enough evidence at present to substantiate notability in my opinion. If this is deemed notable, suggest a rewrite of the article focusing on (a) the substance and use of the term, and (b) being more rigorous about what about products from that era make it attributable to the trend, backed by sources. Welcome any thoughts - thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m old enough to remember the phenomenon of many products being marketed as clear. Was it a fad? Maybe. Was it a craze? Hardly. If this is kept or searched, try Clear fad. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any chance that the nominator would reduce this essay into a concise nomination statement? I don't think many editors will read all of this with the care required to come to a thoughtful decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry about that. Was a bit manic. I've simplified the nomination. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ＶＲＸＣＥＳ. It was all useful information but the bottleneck here at AFDs is participation and a large body of text like that generally has editors just moving on to the next AFD rather than taking the time to process all of that information. So, it was a strategic suggestion, not a content-based one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources here don't do very much to support the idea of a "clear craze", a name that appears to come from a single usage in this Newsweek article. Newsweek aside, most of these are discussing individual clear products outside the context of a unifying trend. I don't think the sources analyze this trend enough that we can be linking products made for prisons, clear sodas, and translucent consumer electronics without veering into original research. hinnk (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after thinking about this a few days, I agree that it should be deleted. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No rebuttal offered to the detailed source analysis showing a lack of sufficient sources to establish GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansolet Rossouw

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

Not a notable model. No references that are non-trivial and non-promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Africa. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to which references are "trivial" or "promotional" as last I checked, News24 is a South African news website, not PR Newswire. Marie Claire is a fashion magazine. V is a fashion magazine. CR Fashion Book is a fashion magazine and so on. None of them are providing trivia. They verified the work she's done and according to the sources… it's notable. Trillfendi (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking (again) as the original creator where the "trivial mentions" in particular are here. Because according to the many sources I've been able to find that substantiate independent notability, the work in her career especially on the runway is notable. Being on the cover of Vogue in any country as a model, is notable, let alone multiple countries. Most of these metrics were decided years ago when reassessing WP:NMODEL. Sources ranging from actual newspapers in South Africa (where she and her story were literally on the front page) to actual fashion magazines, I just don't see the perceived failure of GNG. Nobody has given a clear answer on it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's look at the sources currently in the article:

[44] is just a data-base entry in a fashion database. It doesn't establish notability, and the only thing it's supporting is the name of her agency
[45] is an interview with her, sans any third party analysis of her or commentary on her works.
[46] mentions who she is, her height, Instagram, and agency. There are two additional sentences about her. It doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV.
[47] has two sentences about her. Again, it doesn't rise to the level of SIGCOV
[48] has her name as part of a list. It doesn't even have a picture.
[49] I was expecting to have to gloss over this one, due to the source being in Ukrainian. However, it's literally just pictures of her as part of a spread- she's credited as a model, but the source itself is unusable for any information about her. And, unless there are sources independent of both her and Vogue talking about it, it doesn't make her notable.
[50] is just an interview.
[51] is an interview with some limited commentary.
[52] is an interview with two and a half paragraph's worth of independent commentary in the beginning.
[53] is fine. The author (Marisa Crous) is in direct contact with her, but I'll AGF on editorial control and input. (It's News24)

The following aren't listed, but I've looked them up as part of my WP:BEFORE.

[54] has two, mentioning she was part of a fashion show and listing some gigs she'd had. The rest is just photos, unfortunately. It's not really SIGCOV.
[55] says its about her becoming a covergirl for NARS, but it's actually about a NARS product line.
[56] is about another fashion show. It has another few lines about her. Being generous, this rises to SIGCOV. Again, it's a News24 source by Marisa Crous

So, all in all, we have two sources that could help the subject pass WP:GNG- but both sources are written by the same author for the same newspaper, so they can't really said to be independent of each other. The relevant SNG would be Wikipedia:NMODEL//WP:NENT, which would allow her to pass if she'd had significant roles in multiple notable productions (The Vogue cover shoot is just one), or if we had sources showing her contributions to modelling were particularly unique, prolific or innovative- which, again, we not seeing. I think the promotional comments are harsh- while none of the cited news articles are hard-hitting journalism, they just seem fluffy. If the two sources were written by different authors, and there was a little bit more to them, I'd have maybe gone with a keep vote. Perhaps a bit WP:TOOSOON? No prejudice against re-creation if better sources are found. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Doug Quick. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Museums and libraries, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – includes references and suitable information, needs to settle down rather than have instant dismissal. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for the museum. Each of the sources is about its founder Doug Quick, with (at most) a glancing mention of the fact that he founded this organization. The closest we get is this local radio story, but even that is mostly about Quick with just a couple WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the museum. I'd suggest a redirect to Doug Quick but that page already redirects here. If someone wants to create that page so I can change my !vote, please ping me but otherwise I'm left with "delete." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on converting the Doug Quick page to his bio and make a museum section and then merge this with the new Doug Quick Page, if you think this would work. BuffaloBob (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Doug Quick article with a redirect of Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum to a section in this would seem to be a possible solution. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on your recommendation and will be posting the “new” Doug Quick article shortly, then I will return here to request your consensus. BuffaloBob (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs lotsa clean up, but meets WP:GNG per Jonathan Bowen's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP What are the references that you and @Jpbowen think provide WP:SIGCOV? They are all the definition of “trivial mention.” Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of original ideas but no consensus. If you are arguing Keep, you should respond to the nominator's statement about the lack of sources about the museum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dclemens1971. Fails WP:NORG. SBKSPP, why did you vote "Keep, meets GNG per Jonathan Bowen's argument", when Jonathan Bowen did not mention GNG once in their comment? Please provide some sources that offer significant coverage if you're going to vote to keep. C F A 💬 03:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to the new Doug Quick bio article as suggested by @Dclemens1971 and endorsed by @Jpbowen. I am the creator of both of these articles and I agree to the redirect proposal.BuffaloBob (talk)
- Technical note, BuffaloBob -- if you support a redirect, please indicate that by changing your bolded !vote accordingly. A "keep" !vote supports keeping the article as is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to newly created Doug Quick as AtD, as that's the subject for which the sources in this article provide WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doug Quick. I change my mind. There's more coverage for the person than the online museum itself. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone International School

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

Declined draft moved by original author. Article is about a school with no independent significant coverage from reliable sources. This fails WP:NORG. I am not opposed to this going back to draft if evidence that this private school is potentially notable is given. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is wasting time in AFD, it should have been deleted via CSD A7. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:A7 specifically doesn't apply to education institutions. I think this is the right venue, although moving declined drafts to mainspace is what is time wasting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or else just delete it, and to be clear, if it were draftified and then moved to mainspace again without an accepted AfC submission, I would !vote to delete. I have tried searching, although the name is tricky as it is not unique. Adding Nigeria as a qualfier turns up almost nothing and nothing useful. Sources may exist that are not in English, but as it stands there is no demonstration of notability on the page, nor any other sources to consider. On the plus side, the school has been open nearly 30 years and appears to have a suitably large role that its notability within the area it serves may well be sufficient. Schools don't have to be internationally renowened to have a page, but they do need to be shown to be notable with reliable secondary sources. The page creator has added quite a lot of good history, but the sourcing on that is also unclear. The creator is new to Wikipedia, and perhaps unaware of the notability guidelines, and it would be unfortunate to waste their efforts by summarily deleting this page. I think draftify is appropriate in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone International School is one of the most reputable and notable schools in port harcourt, Nigeria. You could try searching on Google for Cornerstone International School Port Harcourt. It is literally the biggest school in town which is why I was surprised when t wasn’t in the list of notable schools in port harcourt, category and then I decided to add it. The other schools in the area you can check also don’t have as reputable online sources except their website information because schools or anything not political rarely get written about online in that area of the world. I think yall are using your first world lenses a bit. That school is really renowned. 31.205.127.189 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting notability is not going to cut it at AfD. We need to find sources to demonstrate notability. Searching Google for "Cornerstone International School" "Port Harcourt" yields just 31 results (and 27 duplicates). I have reviewed them all, and none will do. Sources demonstrating notability must be independent, reliable secondary sources that significantly cover the school. Almost all of the 31 sources are not independent. Two news articles show up, being [57] and [58]. I have questions about reliability of the second, but these are moot because in each case the mention of the school is very much passing ("When the reporter arrived at the location, she met a Cornerstone international school, instead." is passing and just odd - I presume she means the water company address turned out to be a school, and the article is about the company. The school was just what she saw. "Edo-born Jss 1 student of Cornerstone International School, Port Harcourt launches herself into the music world" is about the student and does not discuss the school further). There is nothing in Google Scholar and no book mentions. So at this stage we have nothing, thus the delete !votes below.

Your comment about first world lenses is not wrong in my opinion, but it is poorly phrased as an accusation. I have noted before that it is generally much harder to show the notability of schools either in non English speaking communities or in Africa, and sometimes, with diligent searching, I have been able to show that a school that appears non notable is notable. I am perfectly willing to spend longer on such schools. However, The school is really renowned is not going to sway any opinion. If it is renowned, what coverage demonstrates this? Does it go by another name? Are there sources in another language? I note it is listed in this French language listing of schools [59], but that one I have already considered because it goes by its English language name. But perhaps there are sources we are missing. If you want to save this, and have it draftified, you need to help with the source search, because at this point I am stumped. Without sources, the !voters below are correct to argue for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : There is no point draftifying since the article creator believes the subject is notable. I have done my research on Google. The school might be popular in Port Harcourt but fails to meet WP:GNG. All the media on the article page was uploaded 25 August 2024 which was yesterday. So there is something fishy that is either the article creator created another account to upload the images or he or she knows the creator of those images, they both work in hands. All media should be deleted as well as they do not proof owner of self publish work but gotten from either the school website or from images uploaded already by someone on google.--Gabriel (……?) 11:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSCHOOL. Draftifying is pointless if it there is no sign of notability. Tagged the images for deletion on Commons. C F A 💬 23:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This was a closure that suprised me and shows how much the discussion can change after a relisting. Thanks to the editors who spent time tracking down new sources. While AFD is not clean up, if we end up with a better referenced article, then this process was probably worth it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siebel Scholars

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

Insufficient referencing to demonstrate notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. CptViraj (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - First, there are several websites with text almost identical to this article, but I can't tell whether the WP article is WP:COPYVIO or a case of citogenesis: (1), (2), (3).

The article needs to be revised to resolve the possible copyvio problem.

Second, there are sources that could be used in an overhaul effort for this article:

Third, there are multiple listings by college, annually, naming scholarship awardees at the various institutions, with descriptions of the award, which colud provide in depth, reliable sources to revise the article.

Last, perhaps the best solution to the problem of potential copyvio might be to draftify this article, and rebuild it from secondary, reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio is unlikely. Looking through the article's history, the current version developed slowly over time. Here is the copyvio comparison for your link no. 1. It's blatantly obvious (and also kinda funny) that they just copied text from Wikipedia and made some minor changes to disguise it ("29" -> "various", "selected" -> "chosen", "on the basis of" -> "based on"). The comparison tool doesn't work for the other two links, but they're dated so we can look at the latest revision before they were published. For both no. 2 and no. 3, the text was already there. So the copyright concerns are baseless and the article should definitely not be draftified. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources flagged here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a list of potential sources here, though it seems they are all from universities involved with the programme. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy.~~ I looked for sources and all I could find were press releases and content promoting the scholars on the websites of their colleges and universities; none of these are independent coverage. It's a WP:GNG fail, but as an AtD we can redirect to the discussion of the founding donor's philanthropy in his bio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection given the other sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Siebel or Improve. There are pages about the scholars at the websites of colleges and universities, and contrary to comments above I do consider these as RS. There is a burden on universities to be honest, so if something is published then they consider it at least slightly notable. That so many have relevant press releases says a lot. I will oppose a redirect as the section Thomas Siebel#Philanthropy does not cover this largish program. Improve is my preference, I think the editor missed what is needed for notability, and maybe nobody helped. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press releases and official publications of universities of scholarship awardees cannot be considered "independent". Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that statement. If universities publish misinformation on their webpages there are serious consequences. Hence what they publish is much, much more rigorously curated than many newspapers. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is reliable. But it is not independent. The question is not whether what they write is true, it is why they publish it. However a books search shows mention of Siebel Scholars in multiple books. Some are primary sources, yet the mention of Siebel Scholars in, e.g., [60]^: 132 amounts to secondary information in a primary source. Some are just passing [61] and some are not independent [62] but I think it would be worth looking at those a little more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found reliable, in-depth sources on newspapers.com and ProQuest, and added content that is evidence of GNG. (Note: to access the ProQuest sources, first login to Wikimedia Commons, then login to Wikipeia Library, then scroll down and open the ProQuest link. Finally, click on the ProQuest ID link in each citation.) The article's sections, "Participating Schools", and the "Conference Topics & Speakers" are still completely un-referenced, and should probably be deleted or references provided. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grand'mere Eugene makes a strong WP:HEY case, having expanded the page from a good number of newspaper sources. There is a question sometimes about the extent that a newspaper article is a primary source, if it merely reports in a local paper that a student has received the award, but the coverage goes beyond this. In addition there are book sources. I state above [63]^: 132 is a primary source, but the section about the Siebel Scholars is secondary information in that primary source. The Meth project link also gets discussed in [64]^{: 158, 286} although that is not in depth. This one [65]^: 283 talks about an extension of the prgram into biomedical engineering. There are many that reference funding. My reading is still not exhaustive of these, but I think that this has sufficient penetration and sufficient sourcing to cross the bar. Thanks, also, to Grand'mere Eugene for improving the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (previous !vote struck above); article still needs cleanup but sources found and added bring it over the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus that there are adequate sources that help establish GNG. Thank you for putting together the source assessment table. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Rizivi

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of minor awards from small-fry film festivals whose awards are not instant notability clinchers -- WP:NFILM is looking for Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards, BAFTAs or major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, not just any film festival that exists -- but apart from two hits of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown media (and a New York Times hit that tangentially verifies the existence of a podcast that she was not involved in creating, and thus is not about her in any GNG-contributing sense), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was at a misspelling of her name: I moved it to Jia Rizvi (as on her website and in other sources), then realised one isn't supposed to move an article during an AfD and moved it back again. So as I type it is at the wrong title. PamD
Note also: most sources refer to her as Jia Wertz, but her own web page uses Rizvi. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there seem to be enough articles about her as film-maker. It was a badly-written article but I've cleaned up some of the problems - use of forename, curly quotes, lack of links, overlinks, etc. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And bizarre system of reference names too: "one" etc. Have fixed the most-re-used. PamD 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She doesn’t seem to pass WP:NDIRECTOR but the Calgary Herald and GlobalNews profiles are sufficient SIGCOV for this to clear WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She’s won some accolades in smaller film festivals, but not the bigger ones like Cannes (which actually isn’t that difficult to get into). Right now, the sourcing isn’t up to the level we usually expect from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd welcome more participation here and review of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Awards section needs sources. Xegma(talk) 14:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does anyone else find it odd that someone with no other edits uploaded her photo and arranged for copyright permission to be emailed a few days before another editor began writing this article? Reviewing sources, nothing seems secondary or significant. jwtmsqeh (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still stand by my week keep with at least two sources (and possibly more) constituting WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Did a quick source assessment table:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://calgaryherald.com/entertainment/movies/calgary-filmmaker-battles-injustice-with-films-about-wrongfully-convicted	Major daily newspaper of Calgary	Major daily newspaper of Calgary	Significant profile, goes beyond mere interview	✔ Yes
https://globalnews.ca/news/7528263/calgarian-new-york-jeffery-deskovic-documentary/	Major Canadian media outlet	Major Canadian media outlet	Extensive coverage of Rizvi and her work	✔ Yes
https://americankahani.com/perspectives/and-justice-for-all-a-conversation-with-jia-wertz-whos-taking-on-the-american-judicial-system/			Review of Rizvi's film combined with reporting/interview on her career	✔ Yes
https://www.dtmg.co/news/digital-trends-announces-dei-advertising-award-recipients	Press release	Primary source		✘ No
https://gritdaily.com/review-true-crime-documentary-conviction-sheds-light-on-shortcomings-of-the-criminal-justice-system/		?		? Unknown
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://youthrepresent.org/boardofdirectors	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.rbij.org/rbij-blog/justice-champion-spotlight-filmmaker-jia-wertz-wrtc3	Primary source; interview	Primary source; interview		✘ No
https://medium.com/authority-magazine/filmmaker-jia-wertz-the-power-of-flexibility-how-i-was-able-to-pivot-to-a-new-exciting-c566da99c8ec	Primary source; interview	Primary source; interview		✘ No
https://browngirlmagazine.com/jia-wertz-advocates-for-criminal-justice-reform-with-her-documentary-conviction/	? Mostly interview-based	? No byline; unknown reliability		? Unknown
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/media/serial-podcastings-first-breakout-hit-sets-stage-for-more.html			Does not even mention Rizvi	✘ No
https://globedocspresentsconviction.splashthat.com/	Primary source (her film)	Primary source	No coverage; just a link to her film	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jiawertz/		Her own writing is not reliable for coverage of herself		✘ No
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.georgiainnocenceproject.org/general/beneath-the-statistics-the-structural-and-systemic-causes-of-our-wrongful-conviction-problem/		Advocacy organization	Does not even mention Rizvi	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Furthermore, the "delete" !votes are not engaging at all with the sources presented or all the potential guidelines of notability. We're not here to determine whether the article was created by a conflicted editor (I bet it was, but that doesn't matter as other editors are fixing it). The quality of film festivals she's gotten into doesn't have bearing on whether WP:GNG is met. I agree that she doesn't pass WP:NDIRECTOR, but the sourcing is clear that she does pass GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an interview with her counts fwiw, but all three are about Conviction more than her. If anything, I think an article about the documentary would be better than an article about her per Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event. jwtmsqeh (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I can see, most of the reliable sources covered her for her efforts in the justice system and the filmmaking is just part of that effort and hard to say it is just single event. Instant History (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ho

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:

Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
Impact on Higher education: no evidence
Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
Administrative post: no evidence
Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [66], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [67], Blavatnik finalist [68], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [69]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
- Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [70]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
- The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
- It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
- Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [71] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases

It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.

Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.

Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [72], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [73].
Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.

Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NPROF#5. A named chair at Carnegie Mellon is listed here ("She joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor in 2011, becoming Cooper Siegel Career Development Chair Professor and tenured Associate Professor.")
I consider @David Eppstein's comments on citations and prizes persuasive as well, in lieu of my own capacity to weigh in on their relevance. Oblivy (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That definitely does not pass #C5, though. C5 is for "a comparable level of achievement" to distinguished professor, a step above an ordinary full professorship. A "career development chair" given to newly tenured associate professors does not match that description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. In fact, I found the listing of dual-roles (chaired professor and associate professor) confusing. So much to learn... Oblivy (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The awards (or near awards) all together come very close to meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would have expected more independent Google news coverage (so as to satisfy WP:GNG), but I think on net this meets the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Casino chip collecting

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - I might've nominated this too soon. (non-admin closure)‎ MiasmaEternal☎ 05:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails to meet the WP:GNG at first glance - no cited sources are independent or reliable, and does not appear to have significant coverage. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a brief, preliminary search I can see that the topic of casino chip collecting has been the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of sources including:

Overall I believe there is enough to justify inclusion. The article as it stands is not well sourced, but I believe there is enough sourcing out there. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of these revolve around a Guinness Book of World Records entry - a search on WP:RSN indicates a mixed opinion on the notability of Guinness Book of World Records. As for the rest of the articles, the majority seem to be mainly about individual chip collectors or (in the case of the NY Times article) a chip collecting convention, not the subject of chip collection. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concede to you that the coverage primarily focuses on the conventions themselves rather than the hobby of chip collecting in isolation. However, the existence of dedicated conventions for casino chip collecting is a strong indicator of the topics's notability, particularly given their reporting in perrenial sources. These conventions highlight the significant community interest and engagement in chip collecting. To me, fact that enthusiasts gather to discuss, trade, and showcase collections, highlight's the notability of the topic. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by @MaxnaCarta especially the LV Sun and 3newsLV articles., Delmarvanow and Norwich Bulletin are substantial but maybe too regional. Plus a price guide which I think counts as book-length treatment of the subject for notability purposes, or at least significant coverage to the extent of any prefatory material.

I would note that the nomination statement does not state a WP:BEFORE search was done. Rather it appears to be based on "at first glance" and "cited sources". Such searches, if done, might have avoided an AfD as there are plentiful sources not found in the article. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alüto

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

The only Japanese-language sources I found seem to be press releases when machine translated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing any indication of notability. Before search returned nothing. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked for sources on Google and Newspapers.com. Nothing came up, I also translated the sources in the article and they are not independent or in-depth. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Salavati-Niasari}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Africa women's national under-18 softball team}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Survival}}