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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:27, 5 November 2024

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 03:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Battle of Khatu Shyamji	42 days ago	2	3766	2272.93
Boğaziçi (Istanbul)	35 days ago	2	8698	1708.35
Shirley Clelland	33 days ago	1	6457	1664.93
Albedo Space	35 days ago	4	8656	1628.99
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism	34 days ago	3	5141	1625.35
1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup	34 days ago	4	8387	1588.43
232d Medical Battalion	33 days ago	4	7354	1466.54
2009 Espinar bus crash	32 days ago	4	7135	1442.27
Mehazkim	30 days ago	2	6320	1381.06
2007 Gerry Reilly Cup	27 days ago	1	5587	1284.99
Back to the Real	28 days ago	2	4279	1265.55
Giant Records (independent)	27 days ago	1	4772	1258.91
Scott Cinemas	28 days ago	2	3909	1246.04
Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)	29 days ago	3	7393	1237.79
Dave Lee (darts player)	27 days ago	2	4674	1205.61
Dušica Bijelić	25 days ago	0	4167	1199.71
Priyamvad	26 days ago	1	3810	1184.29
JZyNO	28 days ago	3	31403	1180.35
Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography	29 days ago	4	8055	1175.87
TECO Electric and Machinery	25 days ago	1	16706	1144.13
Mission Mars	24 days ago	0	4391	1137.33
World Defense Show (2nd nomination)	25 days ago	1	7076	1109.09
Virgin Radio Turkey (2nd nomination)	24 days ago	1	3567	1099.86
Şifa University	25 days ago	1	7094	1096.83
Holographic direct sound printing	24 days ago	1	4503	1046.67

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 battles in Rajasthan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Khatu Shyamji

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

The article is not fulfilling WP:GNG. It is based on single source and also a very insignificant event with not much content to write has been converted into an article.It should be deleted and content, if any found relevant should be merged into something related to List of battles in Rajasthan.Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge - should be merged to article such as List of battles in Rajasthan as said above by the nominator because it is not such notable battle in Rajasthan to have an standalone page. TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete or merge to List of battles in Rajasthan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bosporus. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Boğaziçi (Istanbul)

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

Tagged uncited since 2009 and Turkish article is also uncited. Sounds plausible but probably needs a native speaker living in İstanbul to say whether this is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I have left a message on WikiProject Turkey if they could help with this. TNM101 (chat) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged the Turkish article as uncited in the hope that native speakers might add good sources Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep: There are whole books written about this subject such as "Bogaziçi Gezi Rehberi" by Jack Deleon , and "Boğaziçi sayfiyeleri" by G. V. İnciciyan. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
There is also an article in Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, which is available online. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah interesting. I had never heard of tr:İstanbul Ansiklopedisi before Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD does not qualify for a Speedy Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have announced this AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia's Village Pump for anyone interested in participating. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

TheJoyfulTentmaker, this could be seen as canvassing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @Liz. I thought this would be considered an appropriate notification as stated in the canvassing guideline, since that is a central location and I was completely open about it. (A more conventional noticeboard for this, WikiProject Turkey, is unfortunately very inactive lately, and maybe this could attract the interest of some existing/prospective project members.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz @TheJoyfulTentmaker I am happy with any of my AfD being publicised on Turkish Wikipedia. In very many cases there is either no Turkish article or it is completely uncited. Many of the Turkish editors would be able to contribute here, but even if they don’t want to come to enwiki if they could cite on trwiki we could simply copy the cite to enwiki. Especially for the many uncited Turkish music, TV and film articles they will be far more knowledgable than me. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess there is no problem here then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Bosphorus in the absence of input from native speakers or Istanbul residents. I can't find other sources that verify this use of the term "Boğaziçi," and the Turkish version doesn't provide sources either. Finally able to view the encyclopedia link provided above now that IA is back online, and it does seem to say this term may be used to refer to the neighborhoods adjacent to the Bosphorus. However, I don't know that the sourcing is strong enough to warrant a standalone article. (I'm open to changing my view if additional sources are presented or a local expert can provide perspective. FWIW, my spouse, while not a Turk, does speak some Turkish and has lived in Istanbul and she knows "Boğaziçi" as a reference to the strait, not as a collective term for the neighborhoods that border it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 I have no strong objection to a merge for now, since the there seems to be an overlap with the Bosphorus article. However, if anyone is interested in splitting it back and writing a standalone article, I'm pretty sure there will be no shortage of sources. Side note: adding this poem, which I believe is notable on its own, for demonstrating common references to the neighborhood in Turkish literature. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. The correct target page though is Bosporus, the page mentioned in the comments is a redirect page for it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge fine by me as requestor Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Shirley Clelland

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

She passes WP:NATH with seventh place in pentathlon at the 1970 Commonwealth Games but fails GNG. A search through the British Newspaper Archives just found brief mentions and sporting results. Dougal18 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, found several newspaper sources in just the first few pages: "BRILLIANT FUTURE FOR SHIRLEY BEGAN 'AS A BIT OF FUN'". Leicester Chronicle. 29 May 1970. p. 28. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "PENTATHLON WIN FOR SHIRLEY CLELLAND". Leicester Mercury. 24 Aug 1970. p. 22. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "SHIRLEY CLELLAND WINS TWO EVENTS". Leicester Mercury. 23 Sep 1968. p. 24. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024.

I find that the NATH guideline is pretty conservative compared to the others at NSPORT, so it's worth trying multiple search engines if you can't find sources at one. For example NATH says that 4th-placers at the Olympics can't necessarily be presumed to have coverage, but I've yet to find one without GNG sources after searching so far. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It mainly pertains to pre-WWII Olympics, and more so for team sports than individual ones Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I've searched even pre-WWII Olympics to see if there's a non-notable 4th placer and have yet to find one. I agree that in general prewar Olympics were less notable, I just don't think the line should have been drawn at 4th place. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Sources above from the newspaper archive are fine, the first two are better than the third. Should have enough for notability Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as no consensus, re-opening for one more round
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftify, no notability as it currently stands, possible but still quite thin notability with sources. It would benefit the project to see this expanded before it was moved to article space again. Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
~~Draftify~~, I guess, so that more GNG sources can be identified and incorporated into the article. EDIT: New sources seem to provide more coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Geschichte, @JoelleJay: I expanded the article to include more of her competitions and personal life details, about doubling the size. Can you please re-evaluate? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The size and quality of the article are irrelevant if the topic doesn't have GNG sources. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
@JoelleJay @Geschichte, thanks, can you please evaluate the article? --Habst (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Albedo Space

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

Non notable; New York Times article (I read it completely) only provides general information (likely from the website or press-release, e.g.a "The company’s website makes no mention of imaging people, or the privacy issues. Even so, reconnaissance experts say regulators should wake up before its spacecraft start taking their first close-ups"). Also I found other sources to be not SIGCOV Qivatari (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Google News suggest no WP:SIGCOV and the NYT article seems like a passing mention Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Very week keep actually. The NYT article meets WP:ORGCRIT. It has editorial oversight so unless OP is able to show the publication failed to do so it can be used towards notability. By weak, I mean the other reference I found was this in TechCrunch. Parts of the article are obviously supplied by the company but there does appear to be enough independent coverage within to meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Will solidify my opinion after a full source review, but after an abbreviated one I am currently inclined to redirect to Very low Earth orbit. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to go with redirect for this one, just seems too soon for now. I'm not entirely sold on the NYT article, but I think I would go for a keep if we had 3 sources of equal quality (though I'd prefer it if at least one of them was better of course). Even with how much of it is made of quotes, the parts of it that don't (and are actually about the company) clear my threshold, if barely. Unfortunately, we don't have three, and the TechCrunch doesn't quite do it for me, and nor do any of the news articles that cite the NYT article offer enough additional content to swing things. As a plus, that NYT article should be suitable as a source for a bit of content to use in Very low Earth orbit which I'm recommending as the target as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Very low Earth orbit. 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. The NYT article talks "in general" about the impact of sophisticated cameras in the sky and provides no in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company (which wasn't provided by the company and/or their founders). HighKing 14:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, this USA satellite company doesn't not meet GNG/WP:NCORP which requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Why redirect to Very lo Earth orbit though? Could we not direct it to NASA? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Nasa is a different and unrelated organization. The company develops "very low earth orbit" satellites so if the article is going to be redirected, it makes sense to redirect there. Equally valid to just delete the article if the redirect doesn't make sense and an alternative doesn't exist... HighKing 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

'Weak keep maybe it's not a clear meeting of the NCORP but it may has additional sources too 25lucky (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

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

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Belgium. Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I found coverage in French: https://www.moustique.be/tendances/2019/03/19/ete-au-festival-de-erotisme-de-bruxelles-176446 ; https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sexualite/2014/03/06/on-etait-au-salon-de-lerotisme-video-YUCJW544NBCEPKHBAJJMCGKTIY/ and so on (and apparently sources exist in German and Dutch); if that is not enough, redirect to List_of_festivals_in_Europe#Belgium or to another target. Needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to generally notable as er sources provided above.Cortador (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine whether this article should be Deleted, Kept or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. it's notable and keepable as what the links provide by (Mushy Yank) and i think it's enough evidence to keep this article🙂 WikiNicExplorer (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is an example of how opinion and arguments can change when you relist a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup

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

Individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:FOOTBALL, no significant coverage and nothing remarkable that merits inclusion of this particular season in comparison with other seasons which don't have articles Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ to Staffordshire Senior Cup, not sure why you call Staffordshire local, it's a big area!! This occurred a long time ago so I don't know the coverage, there maybe some there in county and local newspaper searches. However I suggest redirect for now as alternative to deletion. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't really serve as a useful redirect though, firstly because none of the other seasons of this cup standalone exist as articles or redirects, and secondly, it's useful to no one as people aren't really going to search that season specifically just to redirect to the overall article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I'm seeing a lot of coverage in the BNA for this season. Obviously in the Staffordshire Sentinel, but also in national papers like the Sporting Life, Morning Leader, and papers from other counties. I currently don't have BNA access, User:Pkbwcgs can you precis your BNA search results? Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. I originally closed this discussion as "Redirect" but was asked by an editor whether or not there was a strong consensus for this outcome and after reviewing, I decided to revert myself and relist this discussion. Pinging participants User:Pkbwcgs, User:Govvy, User:GiantSnowman and User:Nfitz
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I remain of the view that a redirect is the most suitable outcome. Giant Snowman 08:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I'm finding a lot of references to that season's competition, particularly in the BNA archive, which I don't have access to. There's less in Newspapers.com because of it's limited UK collection - but I've added 8 references to the article and expanded, from 8 different publications. Can User:GiantSnowman review these? There seems to be plenty of further references available to fully document the season, some surprisingly detailed! Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
None of them look like anything other than results or routine news. Giant Snowman 09:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I didn't link any results. These were all text - admittedly one was very brief. Routine refers to sports scores. And this is more than that. Also, someone needs to look at the BNA search results. Most importantly - from your edit history, you spent no more than 30 seconds reviewing 8 references. Your original vote was equally as fast. I really think that not much weight should be given to this redirect opinion. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I got temporary BNA access, so in recognition that many of the references are local, I added 5 more references from other parts of England. Also, I added a second reference from the The Staffordshire Sentinel that is surprisingly detailed, giving a background of the competition before the final match was to be played. So that should sort any remaining GNG concerns. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep per improvements to the article, I'd probably like to see a little more depth, but it's much better, thank you Nfitz. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete yes there have been improvements to the sourcing, but I do not see evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. All of the BNA articles listed are from the time of the matches, when of course there will be some coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment @Joseph2302: Is a topic talked about overtime? Well, the clubs that played in this have the ability to mention it in their match day programmes when they play each other again. That does constitute what you call primary sourcing. However, this in essence is really a historical record on the competition. Having on wikipedia can also give the ability for people to find it and out source it. However, What do you want wikipedia to do? There are policies upon policies on wikipedia, but if you don't want to keep a historic record on wikipedia, then whats wikipedia for? An encyclopaedic archive of historical events and information? This is one of those things, sigcov, sustained are policies, guidelines to adhere, sometimes we do need to look beyond that. But hey, that's my ... two cents. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep this is a fantastically easy keep on GNG grounds just by looking at the sources cited by the article. It's also been significantly WP:HEYed by Nfitz since it was first nominated. I've never seen SUSTAINED invoked for individual seasons before, otherwise we'd lose a lot of the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep – Significant improvements made by Nfitz. As it is a historic competition in English football, I think it is worth keeping. Svartner (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A possible Merge with another article can be discussed on the article talk page. But right now, there isn't a consensus for any particular outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

232d Medical Battalion

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

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, — Maile ,

I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@TheBirdsShedTears, neither of the refs you added is independent, so what is the basis of your keep !vote? JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess TheBirdsShedTears' updates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - the added refs mentioned above do not appear to be independent. So I'm not sure those really count towards notability. I agree with the above that military units often are notable, but I'm not sure we can really !keep unless there is independent coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The refs are definitely not independent and do not count towards notability whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with 32nd Medical Brigade: where the lack of independent sourcing for the battalion would be less of a problem. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
@OwenX This would be cheaper than deletion, certainly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Numerically with 2 keep !votes, three delete !votes and a merge there's no obvious consensus here. The main issue under discussion was whether there was WP:LASTING coverage of this event, and on that !voters differ, so in terms of argumentation there was also a deadlock. With three re-lists there is no further scope for relisting.

My suggestion to anyone seeking to renominate this is to analyse the references in detail and discuss to what extent they do/do not sustain the notability of the topic. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

2009 Espinar bus crash

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

Lacks sustained coverage in secondary sources and had no lasting effects. This is a news article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 41 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete – There appears to be some continued coverage that may demonstrate the event's notability,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] however, the fact that some do not provide significant coverage of the event plus the lack of demonstrable lasting effects all make me lean towards a weak delete. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: No one is disputing the existence of the systemic bias mentioned by Necrothesp. In this case, however, the bias is inherited. If this crash were to happen in the UK or US, there'd be massive national and international media coverage, and annual observance days would be covered by local media for lasting impact, not to mention likely changes in regulations. Biased as it is, we are bound by what secondary sources provide us with. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for one more chance for editors to find significant coverage, given the systematic bias concerns and the coverage that has been found so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep I think this clearly passes WP:GNG with the sources presented above. Keeping or deleting something on bias grounds is a bit ridiculous - you have to take each topic as it comes, knowing that GNG in one country will look different in another. That doesn't matter - the key is there were major feature stories and follow up articles in local press. The next problem is someone still needs to add them into the article... SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Yauri, Peru as alternative to deletion. Sources aren't forthcoming so there is no basis to keep a dedicated article but the topic can at least be mentioned in the article about the place where it happened. It can always split out in summary style. czar 03:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. There are two very basic problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes a redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gerry Reilly Cup. asilvering (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

2007 Gerry Reilly Cup

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

Non-notable edition/staging of amateur sports event - that doesn't meet WP:NSEASON or WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT. Even if the competition as a whole (the Gerry Reilly Cup) has notability, there is nothing to indicate that this single running of that event has independent notability. Certainly the text of the article, the refs within it, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources do not appear to establish independent notability. If not deleted, as an WP:ATD, the title could perhaps be redirected to Gerry Reilly Cup (perhaps to a section WP:WITHIN it dealing with the 2007 event). But there is otherwise no apparent sources/rationale for a single instance of this (non-national, provincial, amateur, childrens/schoolboy) competition has independent notability. (By extension I would question the expectation/presumption, in this template, that every annual occurrence of this amateur/teenage competition warrants a standalone WP:NSEASON/WP:NEVENT article....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I intend to create more articles for annual events of this provincial underage football competition, which has grown in stature with each passing year, with counties beyond the province of Leinster now participating. The 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article was created because when I located the Gerry Reilly Cup article, I found it to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was possibly created in 2007 as it focused very much on that year's competition. I tidied up the article and thought it best to create a standalone 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to place the bulk of content that I found on the main page. The format of the tournament has also changed since 2007 so the content had become dated and no longer accurate in the way that it appeared on the main page. It was also quite challenging to source references for that renewal of the tournament which happened seventeen years ago. Moresthepity (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. If it's "challenging to source references for [..the event..] which happened seventeen years ago", would that not indicate that WP:SIGCOV isn't met? And that, perhaps, (whatever about the competition as a whole or instances of the competition held on other years) the 2007 staging doesn't/didn't warrant a standalone article? Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here so I don't think this is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If the consensus is for deletion, how will data be saved? I would need to add much of what is contained in the 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to the original Gerry Reilly Cup article, otherwise the information will be lost. Moresthepity (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Gerry Reilly Cup – As WP:ATD. Under-16 competition that does not establish WP:GNG for each individual edition. Svartner (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Clear consensus for "not delete", but no consensus between keep and redirect. asilvering (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Back to the Real

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

Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Given the concurrent discussion for the group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, the album has some notablitily for low chart placement and a couple of middling hit singles, but more reliable sources for those achievements are needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep either this or Reel Tight, merging text and redirecting to one or the other. It made three charts; the dead links don't matter as they can be resolved, and in the case of Vibe, the citation is to the mag; and the nominator gave no indication that a BEFORE was performed, let alone if the BEFORE used databases and non-Google methods to look for sources about a group from the late '90s... Caro7200 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The band's article just barely survived delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, and I have fleshed out their article a bit with sources from this album article, though there is very little to work with. That may alter the trajectory of this album AfD, though I will leave my vote as-is to avoid confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Reel Tight: now that the target survived AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is likely the final relist - Can we reach a consensus between keeping this article or redirecting it to Reel Tight?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Reel Tight: Fails WP:NALBUM, redirect to possible ATD since the target was kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM for appearing on multiple national music charts. There are enough critical reviews in the article as well to pass WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30 years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Scott Cinemas

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

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/7-things-scott-cinemas-bridgwater-2585607 ; https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20307914.exmouth-cinema-gets-42-000-government-funding/ and multiple other sources indicate a certain notability imv; at the very least could be redirected to list of film theater chains (currently AfDed.; same nom.) for example. I DpD the page; same nom . -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) (nb-Needless to say I am opposed to deletion)
This is very trivial coverage, certainly not sufficient per WP:ORGDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect Doesn’t merit an article of its own. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Any redirect target in mind? Owen× ☎ 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I tried, I did look for possible ATD but could not find any. Not List of movie theater chains#United Kingdom, and not even Cinema of the United Kingdom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No clear cut consensus for delete or other ATDs. (non-admin closure) Benison (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC

Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- As bad as that sounds in 2024, language changes over the centuries. "a pampered and usually spoiled child" Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet among a lot of different definitions pulled up by a search. Unless we can dig up the year 1814 definition, we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For clarity: this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Dave Lee (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I lean keep because he's listed here[1] as having won the News of the World Darts Championship 1984-85. There's also mention of him in newspapers [2][3] [4][5]. He was also a competitor in the WDF World Cup in 1985 [6] and won the BDO Gold Cup in 1985[7]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Is any of this significant coverage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete As far as I know there's no WP:NSPORT sub-criterion of presumed notability for darts based on a championship, so we have to rely strictly on WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The examples linked by the "Keep" !voter above are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and do not qualify toward a WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Dušica Bijelić

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

Article is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Given the subject's roles and the ensembles they've performed in c6 of wp:Musicbio might apply in which case WP:SIGCOV may exist. Therefore, I would explore WP:AFT before taking a position.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think AFT has any relevance to this AFD. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all tiny comprimario parts with no substantial singing (ie zero arias). To me, this does not meet the WP:SNG notability criteria at either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTRESS.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more participants here. I'm not sure what WP:AFT has to do with this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Priyamvad

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, and India. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10 . All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - a made up in one day award for a writer who has gotten coverage - but in unreliable sources. The India Times was once a good source, but now it’s deprecated. The added sources are a wall of puffery. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Indian Times/Times of India is not deprecated per Bearian, see WP:TOI. This subject clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR for having the national award under their belt, for creating a story which a notable film is based on, and for having coverages of themselves and their work in reliable sources. Everything I just said is obvious from assessing the article without doing a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

JZyNO

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

Subject charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Liberia. CNMall41 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Strong keep, so glad this made it here Thank you so much CNMall41. Before going into sourcing and notability, I have started using my alt account for reviving (mostly African) articles I feel like the subject is notable and deleted under WP:G5. After this, I'm moving on to reviving Pabi Cooper.

With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,^[1] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.^[2] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.^[3] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,^[4] and here,^[5] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.^[6]^[7] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).^[8] This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So he has won an award, and went on to lead the nomination list with 7 nods, that's amazing. dxneo (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like nomination to me. "Artist of the Year" (Singluar) shows him second so more like a nomination. Regardless, it is still only verification, not significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the concerns brought up in my last reply. Once you are able to do so I will be happy to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay mate, let me try to break it down maybe we will understand each other. I will also quote the guidelines so that no one has to go back and fourth trying to verify.

In your own words you said "Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award."" WP:ONUS states that "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." With that being said, I would say that nominations are accolades, and accolades do improve the quality of the article as #8 of WP:MUSICBIO states that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions," where as the subject is the direct recipient here.
Again, in your own words you went on to say that "So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin," but earlier you said that charting does not grant inherent notability. So I have two questions. First, why did you say the nominations are irrelevant when MUSICBIO says otherwise? Secondly, since charting is a requirement to pass notability per MUSICBIO, why do you want to strike it out?
Moving on to WP:GNG which includes WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. this source covers the upbringing of the subject in detail, football, how he got into music and how he moved from one country to another. Yes, you may argue that it was an interview, but information is most reliable when it's coming from the primary source and artists are often interviewed including high profiles like Rihanna and I bet that you'd never second guess a Rihanna interview, so why question this one? And in this case, the interview comes from a secondary reliable source (BBC). This source tells you his full name, when and where he was born, including his ancestry. With those two sources you can sum up SIGCOV.
Subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. The subject is Liberian with Ghanaian and Nigerien ancestry. However, he was the subject of the news in South Africa, which states that he has won 4 out of 7 awards. He was covered by Billboard in the US, and again by Vanguard in Nigeria, not to mention his native publications.

All of the above mentioned sources are reliable (and highlited green) So, last question, which WP:GNG requirement was not met here? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me as mate. As far as the WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will sum it up like this - You quoted policy which states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." I will concede the references address him directly. What you have not provide evidence of is how they cover him "in detail." The mentions are verification, the others churnalism, another an interview. At this point, the discussion is becoming ad nauseam. I will leave it for closers to determine.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. dxneo (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

References

References

^ Zellner, Xander (2023-11-15). "10 First-Timers on Billboard's Charts This Week: Matt Rogers, Mark Mothersbaugh, Kelsey Hart & More". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
^ "BUTTA MY BREAD". Official Charts Company. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
^ "Butta My Bread by JZyNO on Apple Music", Apple Music, 7 April 2023, retrieved 2024-10-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ "Singer-songwriter JZyNO debuts with 'Butta My Bread'". Vanguard. 3 July 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
^ DJ Edu (16 February 2024). "JZyNO: Liberian singer on Butta My Bread success". BBC UK. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "MTN Liberia Music Awards announces nominees". Vaultz News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "JZyNO, UMG Artist becomes first Liberian musician to gain global attention". The Sun. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "TGMA 2024 winners list: Stonebwoy beat King promise and odas to win artiste of di year". BBC News Pidgin. BBC News. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Arts, Music, Africa, Ghana, and Liberia. dxneo (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Giant walls of text just discourage participation from others. Both of you need to calm down and let others participate so we can come to a consensus on what to do. Editor(s) who wish to keep the article - can you please give a concise explanation of your WP:THREE? Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. The subject of this article meets criterion 1 and 2 of MUSICBIO. He is a Liberian artist who has received some coverage in Front Page Africa, which can be seen here, here and here. He has also recevied coverage in Pulse Nigeria, This Day newspaper, Vanguard, and in the BBC, despite the latter source being a primary source. Moreover, he has been discussed in the Lusaka Times and Nairobi News. He won and has been nominated for the MTN Liberia Music Awards, which is considered the biggest music award show in Liberia. He was nominated five times at the award's 2020 edition and won two awards in the 2023 edition. As previously stated, his song "Butta My Bread" charted on the Billboard Afrobeats song chart and the UK Afrobeats singles chart. Per this article, he is the first Liberian artist to gain global attention and is currently signed to Universal Music Group. Per the BBC article, his song "Butta My Bread" has received 160 million streams and is Liberia's biggest Afrobeats song. His song charting on two national music charts along with the sources I have mentioned here should be sufficient for a weak keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you described is what would be considered inherent notability in my opinion. Again, the notability guideline does not say he "is" notable for charting. It says he "may" be notable. The sources are all verification of claims, not significant or in-depth about the artist. We also need to be careful about using sources like this since they are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

How's it not reliable when it was never assessed at WP:RS/N? dxneo (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. A soruce does not have to go to RSN to be determined unreliable. Similar to how a reference does not have to go to RSN to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Sufficient here to meet WP:MUSICBIO, including charting, and secondary coverage, and a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a ~~national~~ international radio network (i.e. BBC World Service). Also I disagree about the WP:RS BBC article being classed primary; yes it includes quotes, but also includes secondary text and analysis and biographical information under a journalistic byline. ResonantDis_tortion 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there other sources (other than the claim of BBC) that you would consider reliable and covers the subject in detail (not just verification of claims of charting or award nominations)?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Just let other editors assess the subject 'cause would BBC and Billboard "claim" someone charted when they didn't, and why would those awards be claims? [rhetorical question] dxneo (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That is why the question was posed to the editor making the vote. Unless you are able to speak for them, please stop muddying up the discussion with WALLSOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to see more evaluation of the sources presented in this discussion since we have some disagreement. I will say at this point that I see no support for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment - Here you go, @Liz:. Would be happy to evaluate any additional source you feel is in dispute. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Mynewsgh.com - No byline and site has no editorial oversight listed. Likely churnalism or a paid placement. Regardless, it is a rehash of what the subject posted on Twitter so in addition to being unreliable, this specific source in no way could be considered WP:INDEPENDENT.
All Africa, this is a churnalism piece that was reprinted from FrontPage Agrica (see below).
FrontPage Africa, using an archive link since the original is no longer published on that website. Written by "FPA Staff Reporter" which is not bylined. However, other news articles such as the first one on the home page are bylined. This usually indicates it is a placement and given the tone it is more likely a press release.
BBC, great interview but it is just that....an interview. Not independent. All but five of the 17 paragraphs contain quotes. No independent journalism here.
Vanguard, while the publication has editorial oversight, this is yet another one that has no byline. Given this about selling paid article placements (yes, a separate fee so that it is not marked "sponsored content"), I would not see this as independent.
Billboard, good publication but this is only verification that he collaborated with another artist and that song debuted at No. 50 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs. There is two sentences about him so not in-depth or indepdnent journalism. I will point out again that WP:NMUSICIAN does not make someone inherently notable for charting. The wording says "may be notable" but they still need significant coverage. Simply having a mention in a reputable publication does NOT show notability.
Official Charts, again, just shows chart positioning.
BBC, just lists his name as a nominee right below the actual winner of the award.
FrontPage Africa, forgot to add this which was brought up above. Completely unreliable as written by a "contributor" as opposed to other articles you can find on the site with full bylines. More paid placement. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
You forgot IOL. Product of WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that piece of churnalism which states - "According to a statement sent to media, this newest musical venture sets the stage for a “lively and immersive experience”." Not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And again, WP:ANYBIO does not say a person "IS" notable for meeting one of the criteria. It says "LIKELY." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm done defending this. Charts are obviously for positions. According to you, all of the above-mentioned reliable sources are not independent. Now the awards and nominations are not to be considered? I'm so done. dxneo (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, stop nitpicking and commenting on every single post. You cannot refute the fact that the subject had a song chart on multiple prominent charts. Charting is major criterion of MUSICBIO. You do not have any evidence to support the claim you're making about some of the sources being "paid placements". You're speculating and making false assumptions in an attempt to justify your position. For your info, Front Page Africa is a major newspaper outlet in Liberia, one of only three in the country. The fact of the matter is that this particular article is independent of the subject. Although it does contains weasel words, there are zero quotes from the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 06:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully I am allowed to respond despite you saying not to. I am discussing, in good faith, both mine and other's contentions in the discussion. If you don't like it, ANI is that way. I never said he didn't chart so don't infer that I did. As far as the reference you shown, it is in fact churnalism. If you want to see the rest of it, you can go here, here, and here. While Front Page African may be a reliable source, that particular source is a churnalised press release so it can't be used for notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have reviewed my !vote in the light of what appears, for no obvious reason, to be a rather strident AfD discussion. The article subject has had a significant segment on national level radio, has charted in multiple countries, and has also been nominated, or won, awards at a national level in 2 countries. All of these are "ticks" per WP:MUSICBIO that are verified by sources which are very much independent of the subject, and are cited in the article. We appear to have, at minimum, enough for a Start-level article. Consequently a presumption of notability may be made and I stand by my keep !vote. ResonantDis_tortion 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I respect you taking the time to go through everything. I just want to say that "presumption of notability" is not notability. We have presumed notability based on those ticks but I still do not see the significant coverage (only verification sources). MUSICBIO says "may" be notable for these things, not that they "are" notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep: The award won seems notable, with 10 years of history. Some coverage in Ghanian media [8], nothing in Liberian media. The BBC interview helps. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion has had 3 relistings and I'm still not seeing a consensus here for any particular outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any policy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific policy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable policy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez:, @Tuzapicabit: I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez: @Tuzapicabit: Are you able to provide updated feedback based on the policies now added? You asked for this, so I want to make sure you've seen it and had a chance to respond/refute. Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both. Given the policies quoted here, particularly WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRIT, I believe there is a strong case to be made that these lists do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

TECO Electric and Machinery

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

I believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. I made an effort to find references and could only find primary sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I am against deleting this article. I have just updated the "External links" section. This is a Taiwan company doing business worldwide, so as the descriptions are detailed in its Chinese page, its Enlish page is brief. It must, however, is needed in English for people in other countries. In Wikipedia, don't be a "deletioniist", but be an "encourager" to let other people to participate in update, in order to make a "weak" article a better article. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yoshi Canopus, there are no sources for this article; the company's website cannot show notability. Do you have links to any sources that demonstrate this company is notable by Wikipedia standards? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - all I can find in a BEFORE is ordinary business activities. The article is completely unsourced and there is no sign of notability that I can find. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sun, Yun-suan (2006). 臺灣奇蹟推手: 孫運璿先生管理講座紀念文集 [Promoter of Taiwan's Miracle: A Collection of Commemorative Essays of Mr. Sun Yun-Chuang's Management Lectures] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press [zh]. pp. 188–193. ISBN 978-986-00-7834-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books. [zh]&rft.date=2006&rft.isbn=978-986-00-7834-3&rft.aulast=Sun&rft.aufirst=Yun-suan&rft_id=https://books.google.com/books?id=S68Jy3GYcjcC&pg=PA191&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention" class="Z3988">
  The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"
  From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."
2. Shelton, Paul (2024-05-07). "Taiwan's TECO Electric and Machinery faces proxy battle. Shareholder group demands change of management and core business focus". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."
3. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事　15萬股民權益在哪裡？" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭，因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽，終於畫下暫時的逗點。"
  From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."
  The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果，只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行，未來，東元電機必須更努力證明，自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5％的模範生。"
  From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."
4. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2024-09-11). Hong, Jia-ning 洪家寧 (ed.). "銀行教父如何改造傳產老店？專訪東元新董事長利明献「我來危機管理」". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年，去年毛利率創下七年新高，營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄，財務健全、負債比率低，無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年，也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期，父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看，吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰，東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定，利明献認為，中長期來看，過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響，東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"
  From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."
5. Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效國際肯定榮獲MSCI AA評級列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業，根據國際知名評比MSCI（Morgan Stanley Capital International）ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告，東元再進一級，由A級升等為AA級，永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出，東元董事會運作良善，董事獨立性符合投資人期待；而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證，為業界翹楚。"
  From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) 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) 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have taken a closer look at the articles you provided. Thanks for compiling them, I did not find a single one myself. However, I do not believe that these articles merit sufficient coverage. The (first two) articles by Taiwan News and CommonWealth Magazine aren't primarily about the company TECO itself. They portray the recent leadership battle around TECO. According to the notability guidelines sources must provide "Significant coverage of the company itself". Furthermore, there are other problems with the articles concerning the notability guidelines:

Multiple articles by one organization listed as one source:

1.Taiwan News: The article has been written by Contributing Writer Paul Shelton and is therefore not clearly independent or reliable. Furthermore, as the article mainly repeats the statements of parties involved in the leadership battle and only gives little, already publicly available information (Members of the board, short history, vague description of present TECO), it is probably churnalism.(see WP:ORIGIND)

2.CommonWealth Magazine: The "TECO's Father-Son Struggle, Family Matters Turned Into Public Matters..." article probably meets the criteria for a usable source. The other article, however, is about an entirely different person switching to TECO. The article itself briefly mentions TECO, but does not discuss it in depth.

3.United Daily News: The article is very short and probably only trivial coverage. Furthermore, it only lists awards that TECO got, does not go into any depth and reads like promotion.

Conclusion: I beleive that your third suggestion (first long article by CommonWealth) is the only article that can be used to asses the notability of TECO. However, a single source is not enough and the article is not entirely on topic as well. I have, however, not looked at your first suggestion (the book excerpt) yet. Rajix4 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I consider all of these sources to contribute to notability. Regarding the Taiwan News article, that Paul Shelton is a contributing writer does not detract from the article's reliability. The source covers a leadership struggle in the company and includes secondary analysis ("However, the FutureTECO campaign has an uphill battle ahead of it.") Coverage of a leadership struggle in a company is coverage of the company. The article is functionally independent of the company. Both articles in CommonWealth Magazine provide significant of TECO. The second article does not briefly mention TECO; it mentions the company's name "東元" 41 times. Regarding the United Daily News article, I cited it because it verifies that TECO was covered in an April 2023 report by MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) which strongly contributes to notability. The book excerpt strongly establishes notability because TECO is covered on six pages. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Mission Mars

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

Fails WP:GNG; the article has four sources, three of which are simply pages discussing the challenge published by the league itself, and one of which is a press release inviting people to join. I can't find any significant coverage of this elsewhere. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Spaceflight. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it's pretty straightforward to find more sources by looking through newspapers.com during the 2002-2003 time period. Usually they follow the same format of explaining FIRST/Mission Mars and then pivoting to a local team/competition. E.g. [9], [10], [11], [12]. I vaguely remember coverage from The Mercury News, but I don't have access to their back archives :/ Legoktm (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Passes per WP:DIVERSE which states Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I'm attaching some sources which gives significant national and international coverage for the event. [13], [14] (coverage from an Indian reliable source), [15] and many more. The nominator has not any proper WP:Before. A simple Google search as World Defence show is turning up many reliable sources giving significant overage. 111.92.113.32 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Analyzing the attached sources - [1] - EDR Magazine is not an RS, [2]- Firstpost is not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424#Unreliable sources? FirstPost /TimeNow, [3] - Alarabiya is also not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98#Alarabiya, reliable or not?. As a nominator, I have done required WP:BEFORE and also conducted the simple google search and the google news search as suggested by the IP. However, these efforts did not yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
A similar group of IPs, starting with the range 111.92.xx.xx, has been involved in editing another page about a military equipment manufacturing company from the Middle East. It wouldn't be surprising if they were all connected. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worlddefenseshow.com/about-the-show/wds-leadership/			Team information from the official website	✘ No
https://euro-sd.com/2023/06/news/32396/world-defense-show-in-riyadh-announces-surge-in-interest-at-paris-air-show/	?			✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ukraine-crisis-delays-ak-203-assault-rifle-deal-with-russia/article65221831.ece			The article is talking about AK-203 and Ukraine war	? Unknown
https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/4065746/saudi-arabia-japan-sign-15-agreements-establishing-qualitative-partnership	?	~	No mention of the World Defense Show	? Unknown
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2022/03/10/Saudi-Arabia-s-first-World-Defense-Show-in-Riyadh-ends-with-7-9-billion-in-deals		~		✘ No
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/616815/SAUDI-ARABIA/Saudi-Arabias-World-Defense-Show-ready-for-launch-after-selling-out-all-exhibition-space	?		? Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/thaad-to-guard-saudi-arabia-riyadh-adds-teeth-to/	?	?	Trivial mention	? Unknown
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/635807/SAUDI-ARABIA/Strong-international-demand-leads-to-sell-out-of-second-world-defense-show	?		?	✘ No
https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/events/defence-heads-and-industry-influencers-to-speak-at-world-defense-show	?		? Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/sponsored-be-immersed-in-pioneering-tech-innovation-at-world-defense-show-2024/			? Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ 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}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Turkey. asilvering (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Virgin Radio Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The Turkish article is also uncited. As there are so many radio stations here what makes this one notable? https://businessht.bloomberght.com/piyasalar/haber/1096766-yunanlilar-karnavali-istiyor is not enough I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of radio stations in Turkey: was listed there; added 3 sources there for verification. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Şifa University

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

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [16]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)

etc.

What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
That is not a reason to delete - the other universities and the Military Academy and Naval Academy are not mentioned there but are in List of educational institutions closed in the 2016 Turkish purges. If the only coverage was when it was closed down, it can be redirected to the list. Peter James (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Holographic direct sound printing

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

Article based upon a 1 month old paper. While it has minor attention in pop science press, its Altmetric of 76 is not particularly high (it would need 200-300). Page is almost completely promo of research from a single group at Concardia University. Considering how active additive manufacturing currently is, much much more is required. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your science. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Canada. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not my science. I found about this method of 3D printing in the newspapers and I thought it probably deserves to be mentioned at Wikipedia. Arwenz (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Primary sources and churned press releases are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Unsure - for me the difficulty is that this is WP:TOOSOON (yes I know that's an essay that's not about scientific research, it just seems appropriate) so we don't know how much lasting importance there is about this discovery. I think an argument can be made for !keep given it has been peer reviewed, !delete because it is really just a small number of scientists saying it is important or !draft on the basis it might soon be shown to be important. I'm not sure how to parse it. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment: it is very, very rare to have articles just because they are reviewed, we require extensive secondary sources. TOOSOON is very commonly applied to scientific research. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, whether or not one links to the WP:TOOSOON essay, it is too soon. Merely getting through peer review is not enough. (If it were, I could have half a dozen articles about my own work...) XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

[1] "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[2] "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[3] "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[4] "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[5] Zellner, Xander (2023-11-15). "10 First-Timers on Billboard's Charts This Week: Matt Rogers, Mark Mothersbaugh, Kelsey Hart & More". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

[6] "BUTTA MY BREAD". Official Charts Company. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

[Apple-7] "Butta My Bread by JZyNO on Apple Music", Apple Music, 7 April 2023, retrieved 2024-10-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[8] "Singer-songwriter JZyNO debuts with 'Butta My Bread'". Vanguard. 3 July 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2024.

[9] DJ Edu (16 February 2024). "JZyNO: Liberian singer on Butta My Bread success". BBC UK. Retrieved 15 October 2024.

[10] "MTN Liberia Music Awards announces nominees". Vaultz News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2024.

[11] "JZyNO, UMG Artist becomes first Liberian musician to gain global attention". The Sun. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2024.

[12] "TGMA 2024 winners list: Stonebwoy beat King promise and odas to win artiste of di year". BBC News Pidgin. BBC News. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 22:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 03:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Battle of Khatu Shyamji|Battle of Khatu Shyamji]]||{{Time ago|20241008010015}}||2||3766||0||'''2258.38'''
+|[[#Battle of Khatu Shyamji|Battle of Khatu Shyamji]]||{{Time ago|20241008010015}}||2||3766||0||'''2272.93'''
 |-
-|[[#Boğaziçi (Istanbul)|Boğaziçi (Istanbul)]]||{{Time ago|20241015143215}}||2||8698||0||'''1693.79'''
+|[[#Boğaziçi (Istanbul)|Boğaziçi (Istanbul)]]||{{Time ago|20241015143215}}||2||8698||0||'''1708.35'''
 |-
-|[[#Shirley Clelland|Shirley Clelland]]||{{Time ago|20241017142702}}||1||6275||0||'''1650.4'''
+|[[#Shirley Clelland|Shirley Clelland]]||{{Time ago|20241017142702}}||1||6457||0||'''1664.93'''
 |-
-|[[#Albedo Space|Albedo Space]]||{{Time ago|20241015073824}}||4||8656||0||'''1614.44'''
+|[[#Albedo Space|Albedo Space]]||{{Time ago|20241015073824}}||4||8656||0||'''1628.99'''
 |-
-|[[#Brussels International Festival of Eroticism|Brussels International Festival of Eroticism]]||{{Time ago|20241016013216}}||3||5141||0||'''1610.8'''
+|[[#Brussels International Festival of Eroticism|Brussels International Festival of Eroticism]]||{{Time ago|20241016013216}}||3||5141||0||'''1625.35'''
 |-
-|[[#1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup|1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup]]||{{Time ago|20241015210905}}||4||8387||0||'''1573.87'''
+|[[#1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup|1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup]]||{{Time ago|20241015210905}}||4||8387||0||'''1588.43'''
 |-
-|[[#Macedonian mafia |Macedonian mafia (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20241018162329}}||2||4852||0||'''1492.46'''
+|[[#232d Medical Battalion|232d Medical Battalion]]||{{Time ago|20241017134654}}||4||7354||0||'''1466.54'''
 |-
-|[[#232d Medical Battalion|232d Medical Battalion]]||{{Time ago|20241017134654}}||4||7354||0||'''1451.98'''
+|[[#2009 Espinar bus crash|2009 Espinar bus crash]]||{{Time ago|20241017215224}}||4||7135||0||'''1442.27'''
 |-
-|[[#2009 Espinar bus crash|2009 Espinar bus crash]]||{{Time ago|20241017215224}}||4||7135||0||'''1427.71'''
+|[[#Mehazkim|Mehazkim]]||{{Time ago|20241020034235}}||2||6320||0||'''1381.06'''
 |-
-|[[#Mehazkim|Mehazkim]]||{{Time ago|20241020034235}}||2||6320||0||'''1366.52'''
+|[[#2007 Gerry Reilly Cup|2007 Gerry Reilly Cup]]||{{Time ago|20241022205754}}||1||5587||0||'''1284.99'''
 |-
-|[[#2007 Gerry Reilly Cup|2007 Gerry Reilly Cup]]||{{Time ago|20241022205754}}||1||5587||0||'''1270.43'''
+|[[#Back to the Real|Back to the Real]]||{{Time ago|20241022004747}}||2||4279||0||'''1265.55'''
 |-
+|[[#Giant Records (independent)|Giant Records (independent)]]||{{Time ago|20241023122239}}||1||4772||0||'''1258.91'''
-|[[#List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies|List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies]]||{{Time ago|20241021234602}}||2||4197||0||'''1254.32'''
 |-
-|[[#Back to the Real|Back to the Real]]||{{Time ago|20241022004747}}||2||4279||0||'''1251'''
+|[[#Scott Cinemas|Scott Cinemas]]||{{Time ago|20241022072442}}||2||3909||0||'''1246.04'''
 |-
-|[[#Giant Records (independent)|Giant Records (independent)]]||{{Time ago|20241023122239}}||1||4772||0||'''1244.36'''
+|[[#Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)|Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)]]||{{Time ago|20241021104342}}||3||7393||0||'''1237.79'''
 |-
-|[[#Scott Cinemas|Scott Cinemas]]||{{Time ago|20241022072442}}||2||3909||0||'''1231.51'''
+|[[#Dave Lee (darts player)|Dave Lee (darts player)]]||{{Time ago|20241022204728}}||2||4674||0||'''1205.61'''
 |-
-|[[#Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)|Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)]]||{{Time ago|20241021104342}}||3||7393||0||'''1223.24'''
+|[[#Dušica Bijelić|Dušica Bijelić]]||{{Time ago|20241025004554}}||0||4167||0||'''1199.71'''
 |-
-|[[#Dave Lee (darts player)|Dave Lee (darts player)]]||{{Time ago|20241022204728}}||2||4674||0||'''1191.06'''
+|[[#Priyamvad|Priyamvad]]||{{Time ago|20241024131903}}||1||3810||0||'''1184.29'''
 |-
-|[[#Dušica Bijelić|Dušica Bijelić]]||{{Time ago|20241025004554}}||0||4167||0||'''1185.16'''
+|[[#JZyNO|JZyNO]]||{{Time ago|20241022005515}}||3||31403||0||'''1180.35'''
 |-
-|[[#Priyamvad|Priyamvad]]||{{Time ago|20241024131903}}||1||3810||0||'''1169.76'''
+|[[#Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography|Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography]]||{{Time ago|20241021144415}}||4||8055||0||'''1175.87'''
 |-
-|[[#JZyNO|JZyNO]]||{{Time ago|20241022005515}}||3||31403||0||'''1165.8'''
+|[[#TECO Electric and Machinery|TECO Electric and Machinery]]||{{Time ago|20241024150342}}||1||16706||0||'''1144.13'''
 |-
-|[[#Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography|Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography]]||{{Time ago|20241021144415}}||4||7123||0||'''1161.32'''
+|[[#Mission Mars|Mission Mars]]||{{Time ago|20241025213719}}||0||4391||0||'''1137.33'''
 |-
-|[[#TECO Electric and Machinery|TECO Electric and Machinery]]||{{Time ago|20241024150342}}||1||16706||0||'''1129.61'''
+|[[#World Defense Show |World Defense Show (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20241025074527}}||1||7076||0||'''1109.09'''
 |-
-|[[#Mission Mars|Mission Mars]]||{{Time ago|20241025213719}}||0||4391||0||'''1122.8'''
+|[[#Virgin Radio Turkey |Virgin Radio Turkey (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20241025172945}}||1||3567||0||'''1099.86'''
 |-
-|[[#World Defense Show |World Defense Show (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20241025074527}}||1||7076||0||'''1094.56'''
+|[[#Şifa University|Şifa University]]||{{Time ago|20241025114907}}||1||7094||0||'''1096.83'''
 |-
-|[[#Virgin Radio Turkey |Virgin Radio Turkey (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20241025172945}}||1||3567||0||'''1085.34'''
+|[[#Holographic direct sound printing|Holographic direct sound printing]]||{{Time ago|20241026110757}}||1||4503||0||'''1046.67'''
 |}
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brussels International Festival of Eroticism}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonian mafia (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/232d Medical Battalion}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Espinar bus crash}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehazkim}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Gerry Reilly Cup}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Real}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Records (independent)}}
@@ Line 86: / Line 84: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Defense Show (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Radio Turkey (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Şifa University}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holographic direct sound printing}}