Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

7 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< August 06 August 08 >

Purge server cache

Cadabam's Hospitals

[edit]
Cadabam's Hospitals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. Existing sourcing simply regurgitates announcements and PR and has no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Koprna

[edit]
Lukáš Koprna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Korpna has never played in a professional level and his career lasted a total of 621 minutes. Normally, there is a good chance notability would spark for such young footballers, but this article lacks sufficient source to meet WP:GNG. My Google searches did not show any significant coverage of Korpna. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan grave necrophilia hoax

[edit]
Pakistan grave necrophilia hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every hoax requires its own standalone WP page. To qualify, it must meet the NEVENT, which states that the events including hoaxes should have WP:PERSISTENCE / significant coverage and demonstrate lasting significance or impact, which is not the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The hoax pretty much spread like wildfire, and has PERSISTENTLY BEEN reported in many articles, including reputable ones like Dawn.
Here are some sources that falsely report this rumour:
Firstpost (which you argued for its reliability once) - https://www.firstpost.com/world/parents-are-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-but-why-12516002.html/amp
Associated News International - https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistani-parents-lock-daughters-graves-to-avoid-rape20230429124712
Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/web-stories/why-are-people-locking-up-womens-graves-in-pakistan/photostory/99838682.cms
News sources that report the case being debunked and false:
The Express Tribune - https://tribune.com.pk/story/2414436/indian-media-spreads-fake-padlocked-grave-image-to-discredit-pakistan?amp=1
Dawn- https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1750493
NDTV- https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/story-on-pictures-of-padlock-in-pakistan-incorrect-grave-from-hyderabad-3990281/amp/1
WION- https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/why-are-parents-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-587324/amp
ALT News- https://www.altnews.in/media-misreport-viral-photo-of-grave-with-iron-grille-is-from-hyderabad-not-pakistan/
India TV News- https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/the-truth-behind-graveyard-with-padlock-story-pakistan-hyderabad-video-photos-waris-pathan-latest-updates-2023-05-01-868273 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VirtualVagabond, OK but you're still missing the point. As mentioned earlier, this coverage does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP:WIDESPREAD states Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been picked up by reputable sources, so I’d say it pretty much is notable. Not to mention that this topic is brought up quite a bit, even warranting an article that was made about it only a few weeks ago:
https://www.boomlive.in/amp/fast-check/viral-picture-grave-locked-pakistan-parents-necrophilia-daughter-claim-online-25859 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchment area (disambiguation)

[edit]
Catchment area (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. De-prodded (correctly) by @GB fan: with edit summary "remove PROD, was previously PRODed 20:13, 10 June 2014‎‎‎ and later removed, must go to WP:AFD". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedaant Madhavan

[edit]
Vedaant Madhavan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO & WP:NSPORT. This athlete is not notable yet, did not win any notable championship and fails Wikipedia guidelines for athlete and biography. Drat8sub (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Menon

[edit]
Ankit Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:FILMMAKER. He's written and sung songs for what appear to be notable films, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. I can't find significant coverage of him in reliable, secondary English or Malayalam sources (അങ്കിത് മേനോൻ). The best coverage of him I could find in a RS was in Malayala Manorama: this interview (primary source) and this article about his music for a film. The rest is passing mentions. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Wikishovel (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Campbell (singer)

[edit]
Jim Campbell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7. Singer does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. An online search mostly shows results of a musician from Chicago who is unrelated to the subject of the article in question. CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Sindan

[edit]
Conquest of Sindan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Examining the sources The article appears to push a caste-POV rather than provide clear information about the military conflict. From John F. Richards' source, there is only a single line about the conflict, which is part of a larger table listing numerous minor conflicts. This brief mention does not reference Arabs, Abbasids, or Sindh; it simply notes that a commander named Bhoja expelled a Muslim garrison from a place called Sindan in 839. There is no mention of caste, Abbasids, or Arabs in this reference. The article's author cites Richards inaccurately (Richards didn't cover the area which the author cited).

The sources by H.C. Ray and Al-Baladhuri fall under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS, and K.M. Munshi's "Glory That Was Gurjara Desa" praises the Gurjar caste without describing the conflict in depth or mentioning the Abbasids or Sindh province (not even the year). Likewise, R.C. Majumdar, Praful Kartha, and Hem Chandra Ray do not mention a conflict in Sindhan between the Abbasids and the Rajput confederacy. The assumption that the Muslims defeated by Bhoja in 839 were Abbasids and that Sindh was a Caliphal province is clearly original research and synthesis of sources.

None of the sections accurately describe the "conquest"; they discuss unrelated events, and the lack of in-depth coverage makes it clear that the article fails WP:GNG. Only about 5% of the article covers the respective event, and that is based on a single line by J.F. Richards. The author has created similar articles that contain original research and caste POV pushing. The context can be found in the article List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none of the listed conflicts in that article have enough notability to warrant a separate article. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial[AFCND] 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial[AFCND] 07:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers

[edit]
List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Think this fails WP:NLIST, tried to add sources for everything but found that difficult. Most of these I've just sourced to photos of the graves. Only mentions in news media are usually passing mentions in obits. Couldn't find any sources talking about them as a group. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

[edit]
Battle of Bhutala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources (WP:RS) mention a "Battle of Bhutala," nor do any of the references cited in the article. The article lacks notability, as even the authors Srivastav Ashoka and Somani Ram Vallabh are unsure about the year the battle occurred, and they cannot confirm if the leader was Iltutmish of the Delhi Sultanate. Neither the background nor the battle sections provide details about the events related to this alleged battle.

The battle section is a direct copy of a primary Indian inscription from Hamir Mada Mardan, dated to the 13th century and written by one of the participants, making it unreliable. The aftermath section is disorganized, failing to specify details about the war, belligerents, or aftermath. The article consists of WP:SYNTH and original research, with no reliable sources confirming the battle or its details. As such, the article fails the notability criteria. Imperial[AFCND] 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial[AFCND] 06:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayans in Germany

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Uruguayans in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Athanasios Tsakalidis

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Athanasios Tsakalidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manzur Al Matin

[edit]
Manzur Al Matin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Article seems too frivolous and like a vanity page, in my opinion. More sources would need to be added for this to fully meet notability guidelines. CycloneYoris talk! 06:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

[edit]
Pradeep Kumar (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we don't go by Google hits but by reliable secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Writesonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renomination: It does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. StrongDeterrence (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! 05:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maita Sanchez

[edit]
Maita Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTRESS or WP:GNG. Nothing that satisfies WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like this article has been rewritten. Please review its current version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mac & Cheese 2

[edit]
Mac & Cheese 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have tried to find citations, but only came up with a blog review, which you will see in the article. The artist is well known, but this is a mixtape and not an album, without any proper coverage. Sharamoscar (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roopkathar Radio

[edit]
Roopkathar Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Six episode web series cited only to unreliable sources or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U P Files

[edit]
The U P Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

[edit]
Fiona Krautil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base One (rapper)

[edit]
Base One (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. The only three references in the article are interviews, with two of them being on unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

[edit]
Time War (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. Delete! Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:
    -Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)
    -Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.
    -Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.
    I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).
JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences University of Ankara

[edit]
Social Sciences University of Ankara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

Revenge Wife

[edit]
Revenge Wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Schierbecker (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Derbent (1922)

[edit]
Battle of Derbent (1922) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is poorly written and relies heavily on unreliable, biased sources. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Insanityclown1 What makes you think the sources are unreliable and biased? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı: It would be hard for me (and presumably others with poor Turkish) to check the sources. From your user name I assume your native language is Turkish. Perhaps if you wrote the article in Turkish Wikipedia and used the “alıntı” parameter to quote from the sources then readers would be able to check more easily whether it is correct. If you cannot do that then please at least specify the page numbers. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerade-Team Pilipinas

[edit]
Powerade-Team Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically just the Philippine men's national team playing under a corporate sponsor's name. See Articles for deletion/Gilas Pilipinas program.

The team did not play as a club (like in the case of its iteration as RP-Hapee Toothpaste in the PBA that would warrant a separate article for this as a quasi-ballclub. Its essentially just a labeled national team which only purely competed in national team tournaments as Powerade. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiofy bookchip

[edit]
Audiofy bookchip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One news article does not justify an article. Possibly merge to Pimsleur Language Programs - there may be other mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal deregulation in New York City

[edit]
Illegal deregulation in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NOTESSAY with its argumentative, WP:NPOV tone and non-encyclopedic approach to its subject matter. As an example of WP:NOT, it thus fails part two of WP:GNG. The subject matter is already covered encyclopedically at Rent regulation in New York. (Note on history: this page was draftified as part of New Page Review to give the creator time to revise into an actual article, but the page creator objected to draftification so it has been restored to mainspace and nominated for deletion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kissena Park sexual assault case

[edit]
2024 Kissena Park sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT. Individual sex crimes are very rarely long term notable, and this doesn't seem to have been mentioned past its initial period of a few days. In addition, no analytical coverage exists, there is nothing besides "event occurred", which is not useful for building an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, an event is notable if it has enduring historical significance (it's WP:TOOSOON to tell about this one) or if it is covered widely (sources are mostly local) and re-analyzed afterward (again, too soon to tell). Furthermore, "[r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes... "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." This event does not pass WP:NEVENTS (yet). I would be open to draftification as an alternative, but the page creator strongly objected to this outcome on a different article and said they would move it back into mainspace.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forcible rape is a horrific and disgusting crime, without any doubt. In 2022, there were 133,294 forcible rapes reported in the US, which has only about 5% of the world's population. There have been countless millions of forcible rapes throughout history, every one a tragedy. As shocking as the details of this specific case seem to be, there is no evidence at this time that this particular case is so unusual and historically significant that it should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If this crime is the subject of in-depth analytical journalism or academic articles or reliable books or documentary films, then we can revisit the topic in the future. It is far too soon to come to that conclusion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every odious and reprehensible act is a notable odious and reprehensible act. If this specific assault case ends up having historical significance, it's a trivial task to undo this decision.
CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, let's see if the event has WP:LASTING or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"