Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 29 August 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Casual Courier

[edit]
The Casual Courier (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:NCORP. The only coverage I can find is the one Wired article cited in the article. C F A 💬 23:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Room

[edit]
The Russian Room (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:NFILM. Couldn't find anything on newspapers.com. C F A 💬 23:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find a single source talking about it, even non-RS one. The one google is leading me The Russian Tea Room which is a different thing. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 23:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SBUKS

[edit]
SBUKS (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 indication of notability. C F A 💬 22:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ as no target has been identified as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 22:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Association for Logic

[edit]
Australasian Association for Logic (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 indication of WP:NORG notability. C F A 💬 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no sourced content to merge and you don't require AfD consensus to add sourced content about the organisation to another article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to HC Donbass. Star Mississippi 22:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nord (ice hockey team)

[edit]
Nord (ice hockey team) (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 indication of WP:NORG notability. C F A 💬 22:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: That wouldn't be a valid assessment even before 2022: the Project at no time considered teams at that level worthy of presumptive nobility. Not that it applies in the first place, because the UHC wasn't a league at all, but a tournament. The merest look at the articles would say as much, just like a simple couple of SIGCOV-worthy sources might. The guidelines are clear: sources cannot merely be alleged to exist, they must be demonstrated to exist. Ravenswing 04:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short of going to war-torn Ukraine and digging through microfilm, you’re not going to be able to do that. I wish every single newspaper ever published was available online and easily searchable, but they sadly are not, and I have yet to meet a genie who can grant me that wish. I can say however that top-level ice hockey has always received significant coverage in mid-sized European countries, considering I have gone through hundreds of newspapers in my research on this topic over the years, so I have no doubt that this team would have been written about in the Kiev, Kharkiv and Donetsk media. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HC Donbass given its brief existence. According to the HC Donbass website: "Despite the difficulties, many boys remained in Donetsk. It was from them that the NORD hockey club was formed in 1992. [...] The team received an invitation to participate in the First Winter Sports Games of Ukraine, where they won bronze medals. [...] But the lack of funding, training base and own ice did their job. The team stopped its performances and was disbanded." "It was only in June 2001 that a decision was made to create a professional hockey club "Donbas". The backbone of the new team was made up of ex-NORD players." toweli (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Wikimedian of the Year#Wikimedian of the Year (formerly Wikipedian of the Year). This discussion appears close, but a full read through the input (thank you all for explaining your choices) shows there is consensus against a standalone article given the degree of sourcing focusing on Rosman's award and questions about the independence of the sourcing. Should there be another target where these Wikipedians can be discussed, the history remains under the redirect as no case has been made for the deletion of the material. Star Mississippi 22:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taufik Rosman

[edit]
Taufik Rosman (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 BLP1E. Also, Wikimedian of the Year is not a major award recognized by the public. I'd say something like an Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor would be and WotY isn't in the same category at all. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP1E Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • I would say the article is non-notable. First of all, the only thing this person is known for, is the Wikipedian of the Year award, which barely passes any notability guidelines for people. Secondly, little information is known for the person nor any event he is involved, is consider significant. I'm inclining towards the Delete option. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to !vote because I met Taufik recently and it feels improper to specify a desired outcome when I'm at risk of a COI. In regards to other PAGs, I think he has more significant coverage and passes GNG where I wouldn't. From there, I think it's a debate about whether BLP1E or ANYBIO is more applicable. I'll leave that for others to decide. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referencing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover in my comment above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for similar reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover: Wikimedian of the Year is a significant award, even if not the most important award someone can win. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. clearly is not true: their role in winning Wikimedian of the Year was quite substantial, being the winner of the award. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An employee/volunteer recognition award by a non-profit with revenues of 180 million USD is certainly significant to those involved with the non-profit. However, it is hardly a well-known or significant award (what ANYBIO requires) given the lack of accompanying news stories about the award. As someone who is involved with that non-profit it's hardly surprising you consider it significant, but Wikipedia's standards are higher than this. So unless coverage can be found for this recipient there should be no article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- preamble though: I really disagree with the nominator's attempt to set the bar on major awards at Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor. The bar for award notability is far lower than that. That aside, I don't think that Wikimedian of the Year is at that level in itself (even the article on the award doesn't provide justification for considering it in a major award category). It is, though, the type of award that in many cases will be accompanied by coverage showing that the broader public has already recognized the efforts of the writer/editor/contributor and thus counts for something in my book, but not enough to rise above the notability bar. If Wikimedian of the Year wants to include a "Brief Biographies of Winners" section and include a little bit on each non-blue-linked winner, I'd have no objection. But there just aren't enough RSes here so far to indicate that the award was recognized as significant for this winner. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's covered significantly by four independent sources. I'm unsure of the reliability of the other three, but the Straits Times looks pretty solid to me as the "most-widely circulated newspaper in the country". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the other three, Rise Malaysia! seems way too promotional to count for anything, the Rakyat Post looks like something that'd count towards GNG, and Malaysia Today looks like it could as well. I meant what I said above that he meets GNG, it's those other factors that make things more complicated. Anyways, I'll refrain from commenting further given my obvious COI here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per my comment on Clover's AfD; although Rosman has a greater claim to notability, this is still ultimately an ANYBIO fail and BLP1E. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the existing references, including the 3 added by মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন since the start of the AfD, were all occasioned by his becoming Wikimedian of the Year, and although one of those added, like the pre-existing Diff reference, is by Wikimedia itself (the Bangla reference), the others demonstrate extensive press coverage and together they give a fair amount of information about him, some of which we weren't including. I was able to expand the article into a decent bio, considering his age (his birth date is referenced, which I made clearer). Also, doing a bit of WP:BEFORE while trying to decide which way to !vote on this article, I found an extended news article that devotes a lot of its space to him while not being about the award at all, and a mention in a 2021 WHO news release. That tips me over the edge, I believe he's received enough coverage in reliable sources for his career as a Malaysian Wikimedian to merit a freestanding article. Especially so since the 2 sources I added use variants of his name, starting with Mohd, and since I am unable to search in Bahasa Malaysia let alone other Malaysian languages or Bangla. Those who can may well find more; and some of the coverage may not be online, or not be indexed where I can see it from the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for expanding the article. The name in searches thing doesn't surprise me because I learned a little about how Malaysian names work when talking to Taufik. Apparently his father's name is literally Rosman. Also, his award was so much of a bigger deal than mine. As far as Canada is concerned, I'm a nobody. But he had TV reporters take a bus ride from Malaysia to Singapore to cover this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was better coverage offline or in other languages. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fundamentally this is still a WP:BIO1E situation. Moreover, in my opinion we must apply more stringent notability standards, basically on IAR grounds, to biographies of individuals whose main claim to notability is for being Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia as a whole and all of us here have a degree of COI in relation to such biographies and there is an element of self promotion for the project when they are kept. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: Let me say I greatly appreciate their contributions, but there is not inferred notability from winning the Wikimedian of the Year award. From my searches, I don't believe there's sustained coverage on the individual and all the coverage was related to that at the time award. As such, I believe it makes the most sense to redirect it to Wikimedian of the Year. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect WMotY is in no way "well-known" or "significant" outside of our own community. This does not pass ANYBIO, and the subject is not exempt from standard GNG sourcing. The sources are local news about the award alone each with largely the same content, not substantial coverage of his biography and I believe the WMotY page covers this content adequately. Reywas92Talk 19:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yngvadottir's additional sources. The page meets GNG, the topic is notable, especially in his home nation, and editors are implying that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are less important than they actually are and then using that opinionated reasoning to lessen the accomplishments of the page subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/weak delete. Congratulations on the award, but I think some other things are needed for an article. Good luck! Nadzik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a BIO1E. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, no sustained coverage and the award is nowhere close to the threshold for ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have about equal numbers o participants arguing for Keep, Delete or Redirect (which I think is a good ATD if this article is not Kept). As an aside (I usually get in trouble for these), in my time on Wikipedia and AFD in particular, I've noticed that editors set a much higher bar for articles on individuals who happen to edit on one of the projects than they set for individuals in other areas. It's really tough for a person who also edits to have an article that is not nominated for deletion even if there are decent sources establishing their notability which would otherwise be accepted for non-editors. I think there is an over-compensation for any COI or bias that might also be present. That's just an observation, not a "vote" on what should happen with this specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not many articles covering this person, so seems to fail GNG. Source 1 is the best and it's a marginal RS per Source Highlighter. Others are about activities, not the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: You don't consider SIGCOV about the individual's activities to be relevant to an article about an individual? Just trying to make sure I understand your argument here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think the other articles were focused on the person, rather on Wikimedia activities/conferences and things, where this person is mentioned. I was hoping to see more stories about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. The Wikimedia award isn't enough to establish notability on its own, although I agree with what [User:Mscuthbert|Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert]] stated above regarding the bar for award notability being far lower than awards like the Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor. Congratulations to Taufik and I hope he accomplishes even greater things, but for now, this is WP:BIO1E. Mooonswimmer 16:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Xegma(talk) 17:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slippery Slope, redirecting the last two Wikimedian of the Year winners would be an unneeded ride to the bottom. Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and the Foundation are notable enough for the yearly award winners to deserve an article, even if the world at-large hasn't caught onto that yet. In Rosman's case, his national media did, which gives the page enough sources to meet GNG. Removing Rosman and Clover from the ranks of notables purposely underestimates, and thus denigrates, the project's proper place in civilization's rush of culture occurring in the 21st century. Please consider stopping here and reversing course. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be BLP1E, but The Straits Times, Free Malaysia Today, and the slightly lesser coverage in the New Straits Times are all quite solid sources, so I'm not convinced by the coverage/source quality arguments above. CMD (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. In the future, I recommend working on articles in Draft or User space where notability guidelines do not apply. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Fortuna Sharhorod

[edit]
FC Fortuna Sharhorod (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 indication of WP:NORG notability. C F A 💬 21:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner, well, at one point the club had professional status. Although for a short period, it also one of three clubs in its region ever competing among professional teams. Right now, it seems to be existing as an amateur club that is based on a team of football veterans. It would be a pity to lose all the information I provided, but I guess, "que sera, sera". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partha Kar

[edit]
Partha Kar (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)

Reason: does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Michels

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tim Michels (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)

Delete - This article was previously nominated for deletion in July 2012 where a consensus to keep was reached. I think it's time to delete this article as it's the same situation as the previous Eric Hovde article, a two time losing candidate who isn't really notable beyond that. Some users then made arguments to keep which I do not believe would hold up under modern WP standards. Thus I believe this article should be deleted or at least redirected to 2022 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL standards.
(Additional comments) Michels does occasionally get mentions in articles after the election, but almost always saying how he 1. won't run again or 2. lost to Tony Evers and not much coverage beyond that. -- Talthiel (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and redirect to the 2022 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. Michels has never held public office and his only coverage has been related to the two elections he lost, especially the 2022 election. He is not a political commentator or activist, unlike some failed political nominees who do have their own articles (i.e. Kari Lake--commentator or Stacey Abrams--activist). Michels fails to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, and therefore the article merits deletion. His business, Michels Corporation, does merit WP:GNG and could have some of the content from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAdams1800 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. If changes to the industry arise out of this accident, perhaps this decision can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Delta Air Lines tire explosion

[edit]
2024 Delta Air Lines tire explosion (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)

per WP:NOTNEWS additionally, although uncommon the amount of fatalities is not notable, unless this has lasting effects i beleive this should be deleted or merged. Lolzer3000 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment yes i agree you built this article well, however, I highly doubt this incident will survive beyond a week or 3-day news cycle, coverage has already severely died down which could fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I believe this because the sources you cited are only mostly local and only 1 (the new york post) is national.
also, the sources you cited are only primary sources and tertiary sources, there is a lack of secondary sources here. [5] does not turn up anything and is just a invalid search query. Lolzer3000 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your right but I didn't add that source Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment yes, you did add that source, its the second source you included in this article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an invalid search and actually if you just look at the edit history you can see it was added by user Ivebeenhacked Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only reason I didn't really work hard on this article is because I had a doubt that this article would in fact be notable or even pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's something in the fact that it did not occur in the direct context of a flight that makes it non-notable, not to mention that a big chunk of the article is a litany of WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NEWSPAPER reactions. Borgenland (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons stated by Borgenland. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:EVENTCRIT. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was a bit surprised to see this one here, as at face value, it does appear notable. However when I look at EVENTCRIT closely, I don't see this passing the bar. I wouldn't have nominated this, and it's far from the least notable incident to exist on Wikipedia, but if it's being put to a vote, I lean toward delete over keep. Honestly, the facts are far too simple to expand beyond what's there. If it had not resulted in a fatality, this would be considered routine. Tragedy does not necessitate an article. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Eureka Rebellion in popular culture (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)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative keep? It seems that this article is sourced which suggests it is notable. Is there a problem with the sources here? If not, then it's fine. Parent article is very long so a spin-out on this topic per summary style is fine, as long as the sources discuss the later cultural influence - which it seems that they do. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire, I just want to note that the parent article Eureka Rebellion was significantly smaller prior to Robbiegibbons first edit. In December 2020, during their first edit, it was 87k bits long. This isn't a case of an article being so long that someone came along and made some splits to make things more readable. With all these articles, plus Battle of the Eureka Stockade, which they created, and all the other associated articles they have created or edited, we are looking at over a million bytes written on this topic by this user. I recommended a higher level article first, such as Legacy of the Eureka Rebellion, which could capture a lot of this information from all these topics. Taken as a whole, I think the purpose I am trying to get at is that this all needs to be better summarized in a succinct manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Backing up to first principles here... so there are parts of Wikipedia that are weirdly detailed walled gardens. Some of them are celebrated as a really talented writer collecting every scrap of well-sourceable information on a topic and providing a comprehensive overview, and others are derided as "cruft" and fans run amuck. But... what's the difference? To me the answer is: reliable sources. If there is a topic with extremely deep coverage and good sources on it, mining them out in detail is fine, as long as they're not overstretched to SYNTH degrees. (Think individual Bible episodes, Shakespeare sonnets, etc., which can have entire books on 'em.) If it's just OR and old Geocities pages and primary sources and fan webpages by random independents, then it's a problem. That's why I asked "Is there a problem with the sources here?" above. If these are good sources Robbie is citing, then all of these AFDs should be closed as keep. As he's pointed out himself, we have similarly detailed articles on the Alamo and the like, so I don't find it unreasonable to believe that similarly deep sourcing exists for the Eureka Rebellion as does the Texan Revolution. Now, if it turns out that the sources are, say, print-to-demand Kindle direct books published by a random fan, or the sources are being greatly misrepresented & stretched, I could be convinced to adjust my vote toward the deletion direction. But I'd want to see evidence of that - not merely a general "this seems like too much info" vibe. (See Category:Ned Kelly or the like for an example of an Australian with a bunch of stuff related to him that is presumably valid to have.) SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In accord with SnowFire here, per WP:NEXIST, what sources exist? With a preliminary search, I can see Frost's chapter "Refighting the Eureka Stockade: Managing a Dissonant Battlefield" in Battlefield Tourism (Routeledge, 2007), Couzens' article "Cinematic visions of Australian colonial authority in Captain Thunderbolt (1953), Robbery Under Arms (1957) and Eureka Stockade (1949)" in Studies in Australasian Cinema (2016), Skilton's chapter "Mining, Masculinity, and Morality: Understanding the Australian National Imaginary Through Iconic Labor" in Gendering Nationalism (Springer 2018), Vine's chapter "Colonial Larrikins" in Larrikins, Rebels and Journalistic Freedom in Australia (Springer 2021). There's a very large amount of material on this, an event which has resonated through Australian history for more than a century and a half. This is a perfectly reasonable WP:OKFORK. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eureka Flag. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion

[edit]
Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a flags of the confederacy article that is along the same lines as the one nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was keep‎. Except for the nominator, there's nobody asserting deletion. Lots of move and redirect suggestions, but the only actual delete assertion was struckthrough. After three relists, consensus seems to agree that keeping in mainspace is the better option. If anybody is interested in renaming, please request the move in the appropriate forum since there appears to be some disagreement about page title. BusterD (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic

[edit]
2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic (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)

Basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Gaza humanitarian crisis.

More importantly, off all the given sources, only a single one (The National) uses the term "epidemic" in its own voice, with 2 more quoting the Gaza Health Ministry's declaration of an epidemic. RS hasn't been using the term epidemic (probably because as of now there haven't been any confirmed cases yet. There are strong fears of a coming epidemic, and polio has been found in the sewage, but thankfully no infections). At the very least the article needs to be considerably shortened, and name changed to "Polio discoveries" or something. Violates Crystal Ball. It's also not being (significantly) covered by RS on its own, but rather as part of the broader crisis. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis. There still appears to be a single case confirmed in reliable sources. The only group claiming an "epidemic" is the unreliable Gaza Health Ministry, and an "outbreak" of one can easily be contained in another article. Seeing that the article title has already been changed, I am revising my !vote to redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Hungary–United Kingdom relations#Resident diplomatic missions. I don't think another relisting will lead to further comments. I'm closing this as a Merge so if there is any content relevant to the target article, it can be preservd and this article can be changed to a Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest

[edit]
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest (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:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources provided do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article charts the significant history of the British Embassy in Budapest, the sources highlight its notability and link with the evacuation of Jews during the holocaust. AusLondoner is on a mindless campaign to delete all embassy pages. Cantab12 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As such it should be kept. Cantab12 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish consul rented space in a bank and declared it diplomatic premises to shelter Jews during the Holocaust. How is this related to the British embassy? AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*KEEP* There is a link with the Swiss too who took over the site as a neutral power during WWII. Please stop. Cantab12 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Cantab12 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete unfortunately, many buildings have had to be used to shelter refugees. I don't see any significant coverage that indicates that this was particularly notable that would satisfy GNG. ForksForks (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To decide between delete, merge or redirect. The contribution of Cantab12 will have to be disregarded as it contains personal attacks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important article about a notable building in Budapest. Cantab12 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have already voted. Plus just recycled another vague argument from another AfD. [6] LibStar (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus among participants now to Keep this article. Obviously, this entire discussion must be reviewed for commentary and evolving positions among editors instead of simply relying on source tables for an explanation of the adequacy of sourcing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Library Association

[edit]
California Library Association (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 phone book like entry does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOTAWEBHOST, WP:NCORP , WP:NOTADIRECTORY Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - This is a stub that needs to be expanded. Please scroll to the page bottom and see the Library associations of the United States navbox. You will see this one listed along with all the other States. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After having looked at what's in them, I feel quite a few of them fail to meet WP:NORG, nor would they quite quality as WP:NONPROFIT given they're individual local association. Kind of like local business alliances. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The chapter connection to the American Library Association is minimal and insufficient reason to delete.
    This organization is independent serving the development of library services for nearly 40 million people.Kmccook (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmccook How many people CLA serves is irrelevant; both the CLA bylaws and ALA website say that CLA is a chapter of ALA. Under WP:BRANCH, "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Such sources are not in evidence Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why do we have pages for sports teams that are part of a larger league?Kmccook (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, but I'll WP:AGF: Sports teams are subject to WP:NSPORT and organizations are subject to WP:NORG. Different guidelines for different subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support @Kmccook in saying that the connection ALA is minimal. Membership is completely separate. Jennaf (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Library Association#National outreach, most likely, due to failure to meet WP:NORG. The California Library Association is a chapter of the American Library Association (see discussion of chapter status here), and that means WP:BRANCH applies here. The key policy: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." There's lots of news coverage with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the California Library Association, but precious little WP:SIGCOV, and none that I can find in sources from outside California. To answer Maile's comment above, just because a user has created articles on every library association and put them into a navbox does not meet they are notable. Some may be, and some may not be. Redirecting to the parent org is a good AtD for those that don't pass WP:BRANCH. Moreover, the nomination does not meet any of the conditions for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi and Dclemens1971:, Do you know if CLA is a branch/chapter or otherwise fall under the umbrella of ALA? If it is, I support re-dir, but otherwise, del seems more appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not independent but for verifying the simple fact, it's listed as a chapter on ALA. In CLA's governance (PDF), it references liaising with ALA and "The ALA Chapter Councilor serves as a member of The Board, and represents The Association on the American Library Association Council," so I think we're good on the connection @Graywalls. Star Mississippi 23:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted above. Far from N:ORG pass and no grounds for a speedy keep whatsoever. Star Mississippi 01:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Improve - As someone who did the work on some of these state association articles, and who knows that CLA is one of the largest state library associations in the US, I'll see if I can find multiple, reliable non-local sources which report on it non-trivially. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As this was an early and large association, there are sources, like this: "The War on Books and Ideas: The California Library Association and Anti-Communist Censorship in the 1940s and 1950s", possibly this "The California State Library School" (I can't get more than the first page but the G-Books snippet was about CLA). There's this: Schwartz, B. (1974). The Role of the American Library Association in the Selection of Archibald MacLeish as Librarian of Congress. The Journal of Library History (1974-1987), 9(3), 241-264. - which has a statement about the role of the CLA. I'm not sure about this next one; it's from UC Press, usually a reliable source, but it seems to be typewritten. It still may have some useful information. I'm sure there's more if we dig enough. Lamona (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is by Cindy Mediavilla, who “has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president,” and thus is not independent coverage. The fourth item appears to be a trivial mention. The second item, by Josephine Kunkle, does appear to be SIGCOV in a reliable, independent source outside California per WP:BRANCH. That’s one—let’s find multiple. Open to switching my !vote if more adequate sources can be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why the Mediavilla isn't "independent coverage". She wasn't involved with the organization during the time period she writes about ('40's and '50's), she wasn't working for the organization at the time she wrote, and it's in a peer-reviewed journal. By this logic, anyone who held a post in an organization in the past cannot be cited to present historical research about the organization. For people who serve in numerous government offices, that does not seem to be a viable policy, since they often write important pieces. Can Henry Kissinger not be cited re: US international policy? I don't think that's what is meant when we say sources must be independent. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant policy is WP:ORGIND, which says "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." Someone as involved as Mediavilla cannot be described as "unrelated," and thus her writing about the organization cannot be considered independent. I would have no problem using her work to validate facts about the organization in the article, but the test of notability for organizations requires independence, so it wouldn't count for this particular conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that we cannot consider Henry Kissinger an independent source for ... anything related to United States foreign policy, at any time in US history. I gotta say, I disagree. Her PEER-REVIEWED paper is both non-trivial and non-routine. Lamona (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say we can't consider Kissinger an independent source on US foreign policy. I also think Mediavilla can be an independent source on librarianship in general. What I would say is that we cannot consider Mediavilla an independent source on the California Library Association, just as Henry Kissinger would not be considered an independent source on Kissinger Associates. This is about WP:NORG, which is slightly different and more stringent than WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not analogous. CLA was not created by her - she was an employee AT ONE POINT, but not when she wrote this article which was about a time that PRECEDED her involvement with the organization. So if anyone is ever employed by a company or organization we consider their writings about that company or organization AFTER THEY HAVE LEFT, even if they write about an aspect of the organization they were not involved with, to be non-independent? WP:ORGIND unfortunately does not clarify that among the relationships it lists all prior relationships with a company are included but I think we will run into absurdities if we reject sources from people who have had ANY kind of relation to the organization sometime in the past. Lamona (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This point is factually inaccurate; Mediavilla published the article in 1997, while she was close to the apex of a longtime career as a CLA volunteer leader (she was president in 2001). But I am more concerned by an apparent view that WP:ORGIND should be amended? If that's your argument, this is the wrong forum for that debate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at my desk now and can access the Wikipedia Library. The Schwartz source has a single trivial mention: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty." No SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since we've had sources proposed in this discussion, I'm going to share a source table to evaluate them. So far, I see only one source that clears WP:ORGCRIT. Please feel free to add more; I'll change my !vote if we can find multiple sources that provide sigcov beyond California and that are secondary, independent and reliable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
No Presentation at CLA meeting by a CLA member Unpublished paper delivered at a CLA meeting Yes Yes
No Book published by CLA's parent association, the American Library Association Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH Yes
No Official webpages of state government agency partnering with CLA on particular programs Yes Yes No Primary source
Yes No Master's degree thesis; per WP:DISSERTATION, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Yes Yes
Yes Yes No A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: "The largest library groups opposing this nomination were the University of California Library School at Berkeley; the California Library Association (2,000) under the leadership of their President, Sydney B. Mitchell; Carnegie Institute of Technology as represented by President Robert E. Doherty; and the Library School of Carnegie Institute as represented by their Associate Director and Members of Faculty." Yes
Yes Yes Yes Significant academic discussion (in a source outside California) of association involvement in starting California Library School Yes
No The author "has served the California Library Association (CLA) in many roles, including assembly member-at-large, newsletter editor, conference planning chair, and CLA president. She is a founding member of the CLA Library History Round Table (now Interest Group)" (see here) Yes Yes Yes
Yes No There is a single mention of the organization in this book. Yes
"California Library Association votes for nuclear arms freeze," Library Journal, February 15, 1984, p. 300 (reviewed via EBSCOHost/The Wikipedia Library)
 Under WP:TRADES, "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability." Yes No This is a two-paragraph WP:ROUTINE summary of action taken at a CLA meeting. Yes
"California Library Association Passes Resolution Against Sexist Terminology," School Library Journal, January 1975, page 5.
 Under WP:TRADES, "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability." Yes No This is single-paragraph WP:ROUTINE coverage of a resolution at a CLA meeting, plus a primary source reprint of the resolution text. Yes

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Additional sources: The California Library Association, 1895-1906; Years of Experimentation and Growth., "California Library Association passes resolution against sexist terminology" in: School Library Journal. Jan75, Vol. 21 Issue 5, p9. 1/5p., "California Library Association votes for nuclear arms freeze" in Library Journal. 2/15/1984, Vol. 109 Issue 3, p300. 1/9p. Also, HathiTrust has digital copies of the conferences starting in 1911 so those should provide additional information about the activities of the Association. I'll try to find some interesting bits in the early documents. Lamona (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, just noticed that the first one is already a source. I'll try for the others but I don't think they're available online. Lamona (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the added sources via The Wikipedia Library and added them to the assessment table above. Under WP:TRADES, the presumption is not to use trade magazines to establish notability for topics in the related industry, and neither source provides WP:SIGCOV in any case. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there's a lot of material out there on Newspapers.com and Archive.org. Found a great book that details the early history of the CLA and it's formation. I took some of what I thought were the best and added them to the article and have included it in the table below.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Stockton Evening and Sunday Record Yes Article from the AP Yes Article from the AP No Local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH (although AP wrote the story, the source is a California paper; it was likely produced by a local reporter in Fresno and picked up by other California papers; no evidence that it was published outside the state) ✘ No
The Rise of the Public Library in California No Published by the American Library Association, of which CLA is a WP:BRANCH Yes Published by the American Library Association Yes Covers the early history of the CLA ✘ No
California Library Association Annual Meeting and California County Librarians' Convention Lake Tahoe, June 17 to 22 No Published by the org and is a primary source ~ Just a collection of meeting notes and actions Yes Topic is only about the CLA ✘ No
The Sacramento Bee Yes Mainstream newspaper Yes mainstream newspaper No Article is long but does have a section about the work the CLA was doing. However, a local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH ✘ No
Tulare County Times Yes Mainstream newspaper Yes The article is old (1912) but everything about it seemed reliable and accurate No Article is coverage of a CLA meeting. However, a local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH ✘ No
California African American Museum Yes Nonprofit regional museum Yes Nonprofit regional museum No Coverage only briefly mentioned the CLA but does talk about Miriam Mathews and the role she played in pushing back against censorship ✘ No
Santa Barbara News-Press Yes Published newspaper Yes Published newspaper No Coverage was about the meeting taking place in Santa Barbara, the censorship part was only part of the article but the entire article does focus on the CLA. However, a local news source; needs to be substantial coverage beyond California per WP:BRANCH ✘ 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}}.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes thanks for digging these up. (1) can you add links to the table so we can all look at the sources? (2) as noted above, per WP:BRANCH we are looking for SIGCOV outside of California sources. Did you find any in your search? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 I've updated the table to include the links to the sources. Of note would be the Associated Press story in the Stockton Evening and Sunday Record and the book The Rise of the Public Library in California which was published by the ALA. I'm not sure if WP:BRANCH applies here as CLA is it's own non-profit and isn't the same organization as the ALA although the CLA is associated with the ALA but not under or a part of it.Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion above. The CLA and ALA sites both say that CLA is a chapter of ALA, which triggers BRANCH. It would also make any sources published by ALA not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back at my laptop and had a chance to review the sources in the second table in detail. I added some notes to it, and my view is that the in-state sources would not qualify this organization under WP:BRANCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the ALA chapter definition means the same as WP:BRANCH. In BRANCH there's an example of a local chapter not qualifying for an article and then posts the example List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters. That makes sense there really shouldn't be dozens of articles for a fraternity across a bunch of colleges. If the CLA used the same tax ID number as the ALA or had any other connection other then being listed on the ALA website the it would give BRANCH a lot more weight. Another example would be the California Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association, they have a closer more formal relationship with each other than the CLA and ALA do. The CLA has a long history particularly in the early years after statehood, this is noted in the article about creating a library system out west. It has multiple notable mentions outside of California particularly for asking a holocaust denier to speak at a meeting and then rescinding it. And a few other sources are from the AP but were published in California newspapers, so they are really national news not regional news.
I've added some more sources that should help solidify that point. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NORG with WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, including outside of California as required under WP:BRANCH of a chapter of a national organization. Striking my previous !vote above. Thanks to Dr vulpes for diligently finding sources that meet the notability standard for this type of organization and for improving the article too. (Note to other editors - not all sources have been added to the assessment tables above, but they are in the article for review.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr vulpes, well, the part I was concerned about was that your table indicated that the sources listed don't help with GNG but this same table convinced editors to argue to Keep. So, I was wondering if the GNG column was accurate or not. That's mainly it. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling automobiles in China

[edit]
List of best-selling automobiles in China (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)

These data are not official, probably OR. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTSTATS. It's unclear what the article is even trying to establish - what are the given sales figures for? Are they the cumulative total for the years given for each individual model? It looks like only current- or recent-production vehicles are included, so is the list incomplete? Are there older vehicles that should be on this list but aren't? There's no context here to explain what a reader is supposed to get from this article, and the sources may not be reliable. --Sable232 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTSTATS. Agree with Sable's comments above, are these figures even accurate, do they include all older vehicles? LibStar (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Henderson

[edit]
Margaret Henderson (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 evidence of notability. I can find no WP:GNG meeting articles – only trivial mentions such as this. Article was created back in 2009 by an editor with a probable conflict of interest – the username RWH Henderson suggests a familial connection, and all 25 of their edits are to this article and its talkpage. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Raspberries (band). Star Mississippi 22:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Smalley (bassist)

[edit]
Dave Smalley (bassist) (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 about a bassist who is only notable for his participation in Raspberries, only one source in the article is about him directly and it is user-generated content. A google search 1 does not reveal any significant coverage that could be added to the article. Any coverage I have found in books or news only discusses him within the context of discussing the Raspberries. Per WP:MUSICBIO this artist is only notable in the context of groups he was in, so page should be deleted. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dost TV

[edit]
Dost TV (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 did a search and this seems not to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep, cut and paste deletion rationale, no evidence of BEFORE Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Radio Turkey

[edit]
Virgin Radio Turkey (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)

Turkish article also has no sources so I am not sure this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel Hoxha

[edit]
Mikel Hoxha (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)

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Played 74 minutes in Albania's highest league and 10 games in the semi-pro second tier. I could not find significant coverage. Hits like this is obviously another person by the same name. Geschichte (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Dashi

[edit]
Alban Dashi (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)

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Minor career with 13, probably not full, games in Albania’s highest league and an obscure stint in leagues below that. I could not find any significant coverage whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep, cut and paste deletion rationale, no evidence of BEFORE Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarsus Waterfall

[edit]
Tarsus Waterfall (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 did a search and this does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to International E-road network#B Class roads. Star Mississippi 22:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European route E982

[edit]
European route E982 (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)

Tagged uncited since 2017 I don’t see what is notable about this short road Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep, cut and paste deletion rationale, no evidence of BEFORE Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babasultan Dam

[edit]
Babasultan Dam (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 did a search and it does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep, cut and paste deletion rationale, no evidence of BEFORE Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belkaya Dam

[edit]
Belkaya Dam (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 did a search and it does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep, cut and paste deletion rationale, no evidence of BEFORE Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bademli Dam

[edit]
Bademli Dam (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 did a search and it does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Pokemon Go. Star Mississippi 22:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon GO Battle League

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pokémon GO Battle League (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 was AfD'd three years ago and kept under a consensus, but I don't believe this article is meeting notability standards separate from the original subject. The sources brought up during the AfD (And the ones many voted Keep for) were all primarily game guide content that discussed upcoming changes to a game mechanic. This is pretty standard and routine coverage, and is frequent in any game that has online features. There was one TheGamer article discussing a controversial aspect, but again, it's nothing that proves separate notability, as it only discusses this mechanic's impact within the Pokémon Go community, and the change itself didn't have any lasting impact from what I could find. When I searched for sources, there was basically only game guide content: things like new Season updates, new Pokémon additions, etc, but these don't show notability inherently separate from Pokémon Go and are pretty standard coverage. There's no Reception, analysis, or really any information showing why this subject is important outside of the scope of the Pokémon Go player base. I could potentially see a SIZESPLIT argument (The Pokémon Go article is relatively big) but this article's content is basically entirely useless information documenting season updates and trivial information like what Pokémon are banned in a given season. This is information largely irrelevant to the average reader and skews the line of unnecessary detail. I feel this information could easily be merged into the main article- with a brief summary of gameplay and some information of its use in Championships- but there is no rationale for an article split. There is no separate notability established, no real rationale to justify a split from the main article, and no real content that makes a new article necessary. I don't believe this article has anything to stand on its own, and is better off partially merged back into the main article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pokémon manga. Star Mississippi 22:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Ginji's Rescue Team

[edit]
Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Ginji's Rescue Team (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 can find no Reception or sources discussing this manga. I found a brief bit in a TheGamer listicle, but that was all I could find during a search. Doesn't seem to pass the WP:GNG, though a redirect to List of Pokémon manga would serve as a viable AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg's Serbian campaign

[edit]
Skanderbeg's Serbian campaign (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)

Essentially a recreation of an article that was already deleted, just under a different title. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo Raid (1448) (2nd nomination).

Needless to say the same issues persist. There is passing mention in sources of Skanderbeg ravaging Serbian towns as punishment for Brankovic's alleged actions, and that is the only thing that is referenced; the rest of the article is unsourced and it's likely WP:OR as well. Nothing in reliable sources about a significant "expedition" or "campaign" beyond the aforementioned incident, let alone the article topic meeting WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Griboski (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I performed the equivalent of an AFC acceptance since I removed the AFC artefacts from an article in mainspace. I will the remain neutral as is my policy were I to have performed a true acceptance. I do have a  Question: for the nominator. Is it sufficiently identical to the now deleted article to qualify for CSD, or is it sufficiently different to require a full discussion here? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not completely sure because the creator essentially took that "raid" event and turned into a broader "expedition" but the only thing that's verifiable and sourced is that raid. It seems it was just copied from the listing at List of wars involving Albania. I put it up for speedy deletion a couple of days ago but there was no admin action. So I figured it might be best to list it at AfD. --Griboski (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boris

[edit]
Robert Boris (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:BASIC — no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Popcornfud (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governor-Chief Minister conflict of West Bengal

[edit]
Governor-Chief Minister conflict of West Bengal (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)

Why is this particular relationship between two government offices in West Bengal particularly notable? Yes, there are many examples provided where conflicts occur, but this is a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to suggest there's something unique here. Nothing links to this article. No independent recognition that this is remarkable. ZimZalaBim talk 15:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not delete - It is an government and political conflict which is going on in West Bengal state on every issue and it is a very vital issue for the state. So it should not get deleted.
VNC200 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: VNC200 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
But conflict is immensely common among government bodies (some might even argue it is essential). There's nothing uniquely notable about this particular case. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::* Not Delete - This conflict is to be not deleted because this is an developing issue and one of the most important political issue as well for the state of West Bengal.

VNC200 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Note: this is a duplicate comment by VNC200. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Garg

[edit]
Jatin Garg (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)

He does not meet criteria for notability at WP:BIO or any other criteria for individuals. The references are all self-published, connected to the subject, or promotional in nature. He's probably a fine doctor, but he's not notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Given the prior AfD resulted in deletion and all current participants are arguing for deletion, I am closing as delete in spite of the low participation. Malinaccier (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) (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)

Extremely minor left-wing group, no reliable third party sources present or discoverable to meet GNG, no notable election victories or the like to justify notability. Also appears to be defunct. Due to splits and other events regarding international organisation it was a part of, there's no clear redirect target. As a result should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 22:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou Gezhi High School

[edit]
Fuzhou Gezhi High School (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 searched for sources and did not find enough good ones to show notability. However as the article is in 2 other languages speakers of those languages may know better than me. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the school is definitely notable in the Chinese-speaking world. It's one of the best high schools in a city of 4 million. Sources are easier to find via Baidu, the dominant Chinese-language search engine ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Arthurtsao (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lohit High School

[edit]
Sri Lohit High School (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)

Please see tags Chidgk1 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Workers Thailand

[edit]
Socialist Workers Thailand (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 article fails to meet our standards for notability, verifiability, and neutrality, with much of the content lacking reliable sources, containing original research, and exhibiting potential bias, making it unsuitable for inclusion. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured One

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Armoured One (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)

Looks like not meeting NCORP, no reliable media. BoraVoro (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 13:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Brezina

[edit]
Patrik Brezina (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 cannot find any evidence of notability for Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. His playing career was confined to lower leagues, having last played for Zlaté Moravce in 2014 before suddenly disappearing. The only secondary sources I found are SME written in 2014 and 2018, both of which only mention him in an image caption. Using the keyword "Patrik Brezina" on Google find other men with the same name, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antier Solutions

[edit]
Antier Solutions (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)

Promotional article on a company that fails WP:NCORP. All available sources, both in article and in WP:BEFORE search, are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, press releases, contracts), or sponsored/unreliable content per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debobrato Mukherjee

[edit]
Debobrato Mukherjee (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)

Non-notable actor. Roles are mainly small roles, I could not find anything to support multiple significant roles. The sources are passing mentions, at best, many sources don't even mention this person at all. Ravensfire (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The page was technically only tagged for two days, so let's allow a full seven days to transpire.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China (Superleague Formula team)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
China (Superleague Formula team) (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)

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 14:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Pereiro Lage

[edit]
Pablo Pereiro Lage (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 -- a biography of a businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO -- was recreated after being deleted following an expired PROD. The sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the context of his company or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; there's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. However, there's a twist: the newly created version includes a claim that he was a member of the Spanish Congress of Deputies. Interestingly, none of the sources verify that. The source link is dead. He does not appear in Wikipedia's list of members of the 12th_Congress_of_Deputies. To combination of his names appears on the Congress's website, nor do any other links on on the web confirm this statement. Even Pereiro Lage's own webpage makes no reference to being a deputy. (If anyone can provide reliable source evidence that he was indeed a member of the Deputies I will withdraw this nomination under WP:NPOL. Until then, there's no evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 13:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ganzel

[edit]
Jason Ganzel (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)

Can only find one news source and the book sources appear to have minimal depth. The only reason I'm not CSDing this is that there exists one source covering him. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Macedonia (proposal)

[edit]
Kingdom of Macedonia (proposal) (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)

Reason is the lack of notability of this article. Also, no reliable, secondary, independent sources can be found on this topic and this idea seems to be only an ephemeral short-lived proposal, if any. The only secondary source used in the article is a publication in Australian local Macedonian diaspora website and some claims there are incorrect from historical perspective as the story about the mass existence of Ethnic Macedonians then. The author of the article does not hold any university degrees and is not a historian. The rest are outdated publications from the beginning of the 20th century which do not confirm the notability of the article in any way. Jingiby (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed a PROD you might have placed on the article, or someone else, b/c PROD (proposed deletion) and AFD (this) cannot happen at the same time. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Strauss

[edit]
Ilan Strauss (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)

Looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2020 PhD with a handful of citations in a medium to high citation field. Prodded by Dclemens1971. Deprodded by SPA Shegad with a note that they had fixed all the issues, but adding primary sources does not help establish NPROF notability. The FT reference is only a passing mention (and there is little other sign of GNG), and the grant may help the subject do notable work, but does not itself contribute to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review: (only listing the independent sources):
2 sources for the paper on the attention economy, 4 sources unhelpful because they are self-published/non-significant coverage probably written by him given its him signing it/not commenting on him/also woul dargue not significant coverage, and non-independent.
It looks like his best claim to encyclopedic notability is the paper he co-authored, but since none of the sources discuss him, or really his co-authors, probably it would go in an article about the theory itself (rents in the attention economy). We also do have a page on Attention economy, so *maybe* there? Mrfoogles (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having done the source review and google-searched him. Cannot find any independent, reliable sources significantly discussing him, and there's no reason to think there are any. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There was clear consensus against deletion, and some good arguments in favour of redirecting. But without consensus to redirect, it cannot be used as an alternative to Keep. Owen× ☎ 21:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmam Engey

[edit]
Dharmam Engey (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)

Only two potential RS: Guy is RS, the Dina Thanthi source is only cited to a release date change and that seems to be mostly what they publish about movies from what I have seen (could not find the exact article sourced, insufficient info and from 1972). The other cited sources are variously not about topic (Ragunathan), retail (Mossymart), and a list (151 etc). BEFORE found no further RS. Redirect to the director may be a better alternative than deletion, per Mushy Yank, if this discussion doesn't result in Keep. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Keep and Redirect (an outcome I assume the nominator is okay with).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sivaji_Ganesan_filmography#Films per RangersRus. This has been open for weeks and still all we have found is a review in The Hindu. Yes, the review addresses the film, but it is a single source. It is paywalled so all I can see is the intro of the review, but even if it is significant coverage we have to consider WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which raises an unanswered question regarding independence. This is a case where we definitely need more than a single review to demonstrate notability. Ultimately an article should not be kept if there is insufficient information to write an encyclopaedic article. That is the case here. Redirecting would allow the page history to be recovered and the article recreated if a range of suitable secondary sources became available in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The last The Hindu source that I added mentions the film four times reiterating the director, actress and box office failure. Feel like this AFD was done quickly without going to Google Translate and finding Tamil-language sources. DareshMohan (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It still only counts as one source, and multiple are needed - even if these are indeed independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the Hindu Tamil Thisai source [20]. Multiple new sources that I added mention different aspects of the film's failure. @Sirfurboy: DareshMohan (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sirfurboy, the English Hindu archive link is not affected by the paywall so you can view it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. For some reason the archive gave me no content when I looked yesterday. Reading it now, it is much as I expected. This review does give something to write the article off, but it remains a single source. We don't yet have any others. The WP:NEWSORGINDIA question remains, although there is no strong reason to suspect this one is not independent. If we had multiple sources, I'd be willing to count this as one. But we still need multiple sources for GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The sources are thin, but I am convinced there are enough to support this article. I would also support a merge, but I am skeptical of the targets mentioned here. Either way, that can be discussed outside of the AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to redirect but A. C. Tirulokchandar is a better target [21]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Analysis of added sources - The following sources were added to the article since my !vote. To count towards GNG each source must have significant coverage, be independent of the subject and be in a reliable secondary source. Some of these sources are the same publication, and count together, but that is moot as I dont think any reach significant coverage. I have reviewed them all in translation, and my thoughts are as follows:
  1. [22] - This is just a line in a list of films. Not SIGCOV.
  2. [23] - About a different film. Could not find any mention. Clearly not SIGCOV.
  3. [24] Article about two "geniuses". Cannot see any mention of the film. Clearly not SIGCOV.
  4. [25] A crowd of 150 people caused the film to run for 2 days. That's all it says. Not SIGCOV.
  5. [26] Article about an actor, states they acted in the film. that is all. Not SIGCOV.
  6. [27] Another article about the same actor also states they acted in the film and that the film did not touch 100 days. That is all. Not SIGCOV
  7. [28] - This is the longest write up of all, again about the same actor. It says:

    Where is Dharma: Director A.C. The film is directed by Triloka Chander and produced by Shanti Films. MS Viswanathan has composed the music for this. Sivaji Ganesan and J Jayalalithaa are playing the lead roles in it. But even though this film did not get a good reception in terms of collection, it became a film that attracted the hearts of the fans.

    - that is all. That is not SIGCOV either. Bear in mind that significant coverage needs to provide information from which the page can be created. Other than the fact that this film flopped, we have almost nothing here to use in the article. Thus the keep votes appear to be premature. There is no pass of WP:GNG here. Happy to discuss the most suitable redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the film is தர்மம் எங்கே, and is mentioned in source 2 and 3. Source 5 is the one I mentioned earlier, which also just mentions the director, actor, actress and box office failure. Since they might not be SIGCOV, maybe a second review will help. DareshMohan (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then source 2 says of the same actor:

Then on 15th July, he took action film 'Where is Dharma' directed by A.C. Thirulokachandar. Jayalalitha acted opposite Shivaji in this.

This is not SIGCOV. There is nothing about the film here. Source 3 is merely the title and nothing else in a long list of collaborations of the "two geniuses". Nothing but the title. Clearly not SIGCOV. So again, none of these have SIGCOV. The only significant coverage in any source seen so far is in the Hindu source, which is actually a review of the film. But a single review is never enough for GNG, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA raises questions as to whether even that one is sufficient. This is not, under any measure, a GNG pass. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: There are sufficient sources to save the article from deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources? Could you list any three sources that have significant coverage, that are independent reliable secondary sources? Votes don't matter, but actual sources do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer - This editor has been canvassed to this deletion discussion [29]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was NOT canvassing! He just informed me of the AfD, and I volunteered to salvage the article. In fact, most of it was expanded by me. Since it's not on my watchlist and the Indian cinema task force didn't alert me, I don't know how else I could have known about the AfD. While I've been working my butt off (sorry, no rudeness or profanity intended) since the last few years to save pre-2000s Tamil film articles from deletion, others relish in getting them deleted rather than seeking help expanding. The uncontested, uninformed deletion of Puthiya Vaarpugal (I got it restored and expanded) angered me enough to prevent other Tamil film articles from suffering a similar fate. The English Hindu article and multiple Hindu Tamil articles guarantee the article deserves to exist since they are NOT passing mentions. They actually talk about the film's release date and reception, and how it was Sivaji's only unsuccessful film in an otherwise celebrated year. Also notable because Sivaji was primarily a dramatic actor, yet this film was atypical by favouring action. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly fair enough that you should be commenting here, but it is not a WP:APPNOTE if a single contributor only is approached based on their expected views. In any case, what still matters is sources. We do not have SIGCOV in multiple sources. If you are able to find such significant coverage, then the article would be shown to be notable, but as it stands, we do not. Can you name three sources with significant coverage, that are independent, reliable secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the notification neutral. On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Check this article's history, he is the main contributor. This editor (Kailash) devotes his time to improving old Tamil-language films. Even if he voted to delete the article, I wouldn't mind as maybe because this films isn't famous like Puthiya Vaarpugal. Just try to applaud his efforts. There seems to be implicit bias on English Wikipedia towards non-English films. There are several sources in this film but based on your argument it seems like if all the information was in one source instead of compiled from many, the film would have been notable. DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not bias. It is really quite simple. Have a read of WP:GNG. We need the sources. So again Could you list any three sources that have significant coverage, that are independent reliable secondary sources? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taufan

[edit]
Taufan (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)

Unable to find WP:SIGCOV sources, and the article fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM criteria. It can be redirected to the director's article, but it needs some reliable source to exist. GrabUp - Talk 07:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Chandra

[edit]
Manish Chandra (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 person does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. The sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV and are merely passing mentions, with quotes from the subject and similar content. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep after article improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulla West

[edit]
Ulla West (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)

Swedish article is also unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Only first hit of google news is about her. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the addition of two in-depth sources by @Julle I believe this article meets WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with AlexandraAVX --ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've spent some time hunting down sources and like AlexandraAVX, I think the article meets our minimum requirements. Google News does, for some reason, barely index Swedish newspaper articles; to make it additionally complicated to find them, many slighlty older Swedish newspaper articles aren't easily available online. But a Swedish newspaper archive yielded better results. /Julle (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source improvement. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination is withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunts

[edit]
The Hunts (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:SIGCOV. It's essentially unreferenced. The only cited "source" (air quotes) is to an obscure unpublished speech. Definitely not usable as a source per WP:Verifiability. 4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original Spanish title was Las cacerías according to an article in the Journal of Romance Studies, under which there appear to be many many hits. This book, entirely about the author, has 93 uses of the title. This newspaper article mentions it, looks like sigcov but idk spanish. Here as well. Lot of other hits - this was the author's only work ever translated into English. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I appreciate the effort to find sources. That's great but there needs to be some actual content on the book to indicate its importance or the article should be speedy deleted per WP:A7. Our speedy delete criteria supercedes notability criteria, so any attempt to keep the article needs to at least meet this basic requirement. @ Hyperbolick and PARAKANYAA could you please take the time to make a credible claim to why the book is encyclopedic in the article by expanding the text of the article. That should only take a a few sentences (use WP:BOOKCRIT as a guide). A stub should be sufficient to establish that. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @4meter4 I strongly disagree. Also A7 doesn't even apply to books: "it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals."
    I will do so anyway, because I am a nice person, but come on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I should have read that policy more carefully. I find it odd that commercial products are exempt from that policy. One would think that a basic assertion of encyclopedic notability would be a fundamental requirement of all articles and not just selective topical areas. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I have now added stuff. There is a lot more but all the analysis is so poetic that it's very difficult for me to understand what they're talking about especially given the language barrier. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not bereft of sources, either. Could merge to Amelia Biagioni. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more sources in any case but this fulfills our notability guidelines. I don't see the point of the merge because it certainly wouldn't improve the author's article as reception to a singular work and not her whole body of work would come off jarring, IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Emil Draitser. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Supervisor of the Sea

[edit]
The Supervisor of the Sea (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)

Delete per WP:PROMO. Article is written like an advertisement or the back of a book jacket. The quotes do not give details on the publications so that they can be verified. 4meter4 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lutz Rathenow. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Ordinary World of Lutz Rathenow

[edit]
The Fantastic Ordinary World of Lutz Rathenow (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)

Completely unreferenced article on a work of uncertain notability. A redirect to Lutz Rathenow would be a suitable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect according to the one source that I could find that discusses it in more than a listing, this is a partially translated selection of his German works. Collections tend to get less reviews I find, so I doubt there is much else, and there would be nothing in German. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Looks like the article is unreferenced no more. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addictive Aversions

[edit]
Addictive Aversions (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)

Completely unreferenced article on a work of uncertain notability. Redirecting to Alfredo de Palchi would be a suitable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sigcov in this book. Review here. This book review index shows there were two other reviews from Small Press Review in May 1999 and one in July 1999 from a publication I cannot figure out their abbreviation for (Translation Review something?). PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol: On Photographs of War

[edit]
Sevastopol: On Photographs of War (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)

Created in 2004 as an unreferenced article, as was normal in the early days of wikipedia. The one literary journal that was used wasn't actually a review with a by-lined author but was an advertisement with a short quote by Patricia Spears Jones recommending the book with an amazon link pushing sales. I removed it as it looked like an advertisement. I was not able to find any reviews or independent sources, but there may be something in newspaper archives or journals behind pay walls that I don't have access to. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete per below. That Jones review doesn't appear to be an advertisement, it's from this book which has its full content, so I view it as legitimate. There's also this review - it was reposted by the author of the book, but does appear to be a legitimate review from the magazine Chelsea. I can't check to see if it's in there because JSTOR is being very weird about it, but I got a hit from it when I searched the words in the review so I believe it's a match to the review republished on his site, which shows sigcov. That's two reviews, passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA I would not consider that book independent significant coverage. The Directory of American Poetry is essentially a purchasing catalogue marketed to librarians. It's not a serious reference work, nor is it impartial. The content here is universally positive on every book through the entire volume series. There are no negative comments or reviews. The quotes in question are most likely grabbed from the book jackets. It's telling that most of the quotes don't say where they were originally published (if they were at all). It's not unusual for author friends of others authors to provide positive quotes to help their friends sell their book, or for publishers to get other authors they work with to help promote their other writers by saying something positive they can put on a book jacket. The fact that there are prices attached makes it clear this is a book intended to help librarians select content for expanding their collections on poetry. There's a financial motive here and a lack of transparency surrounding the content about each book which makes it not independent or reliable in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The fact that there are prices attached means nothing, that's the case for most book reviews in my experience. The other point may be fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I have never seen a by-lined journal article review not say something critical even if its an overall positive review. Academic journals (and even newspapers) don't generally publish puff pieces. The fact that this publication has no negative or partially negative comments in combination with a pricing guide should tell you it is a catalogue being used for marketing purposes as opposed to a reliable literary reference work.4meter4 (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irritatingly I can find no images of the actual physical copy of the book to see if that's where it was gotten from. I change my vote to delete since I can't figure out where it's from. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – not enough coverage available. It's telling that the author William Allen does not have an article – Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There is still disagreement on whether this is a valid or invalid content fork and there is no consensus to delete, merge, or keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion

[edit]
White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion (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)

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on grounds offered. This seems a classic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spin-out of a subtopic to a separate article. It's possible that it should be merged or reorganized elsewhere but if there isn't an issue with the content, then complying with WP:SIZE sometimes means making such branch articles as these. Nothing new there. It's only a content fork if the exact same matter is discussed in two different places (usually the fork applying its own unique spin on the topic), and that doesn't appear to be the case? SnowFire (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some tightening of the text (which reads a bit too much like an essay rather than a statement of facts) this could merge with the main article on the Eureka Rebellion which has a lengthy quote about the Chinese presence but which does not explain the racial issues nearly as well as this article. Lamona (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE : A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not yet had a detailed look at this, but it appears to have significant WP:OR and WP:ESSAY issues. AFAICS none of the sourcing mentions white nationalism (as opposed to racism). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Taken together these articles on the rebellion are probably notable, but the style and the titling are not appropriate for Wikipedia. With a lot of editing these could be made into a single or a few good articles, but it will take a LOT of editing. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a student of military history, I'm not particularly interested in the politics of the Eureka Rebellion myself. I was only trying to get the ball rolling. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails verification and is WP:OR; the entire lede is pure WP:ESSAY. This is pretty typical of the entire piece: "Numerous authors have mentioned the antipathy of the European miners towards the presence of Asiatics on the goldfields, including Russel Ward, who has noted: "The Chinese ... were conspicuous by their absence at Eureka"" The quote from Ward demonstrates nothing about the "antipathy of European miners". Nor can I verify the source (unlisted in the bibliography); half the references cannot be verified. Per WP:NEXIST, there's no sources that I can find which speak of "white nationalism" in this context. White Nationalism is distinct from racism or, more specifically to Eureka, Sinophobia. There is definitely a stand alone article on racism and Eureka (although I think it would be better located in an article on the historiography of Eureka), but it is not this one. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it might just benefit from some copy editing. I don't see why Wikipedia won't let readers take a deep dive into the subject of the Eureka Rebellion as is the case with the series on the American revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:American_Revolution_sidebar. We're talking about the best documented event in 19th century Australian history. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not WP:OKFORK, the problem is original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing the original research. The use of the Eureka flag and mythology by white nationalists is well known and documented. And I am having difficulty with your assertion that white nationalism is distinct from racism ie that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a racist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem here is that the article is applying a term for a contemporary phenomenon (relatively speaking) to an historical incident. If the article was about how contemporary White Nationalists deploy Eureka mythology, that might be an article (although again I'd see that more for a piece on the historiography of Eureka). However, that's not the content of this article; it is simply a discussion of racism in the context of the Eureka rebellion. I'm happy to change my view if one can show the preponderance of historians discuss the anti-Chinese incidents around the Eureka rebellion as "White Nationalism". Described as racism and xenophobia, yes, sources discuss those terms. However, White Nationalism is a far more recent term (Ngram comparison with racism) more frequently associated with *movements/parties* of the far-right, not *generalised* racism within society. I'm not aware of its general use to describe racism in mid-19th Century Australia. In the Australian context, it is initially associated with the anti-communist far right movements of the 1950s and 1960s and susequentlty applied to neo-Nazi movements (and others) in Australia from the 1970s. It's OR precisely because it's anachronistic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1 Lamona (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism and xenophobia are also recent terms. Nor is it clear that the scope of the article is restricted to the 19th century. In the lead it reads: "The Eureka Flag is often featured on bumper stickers with white nationalist political slogans, and the Australia First Party has incorporated it into their official logo. Many, including Peter Fitzsimons, have criticised such use by 'those who ludicrously brandish it as a symbol of white Australia'." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism and xenophobia are not absent from historians' discourse about Eureka, "white nationalism" is. Without a prepondrance of reliable sourcing to show otherwise, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to conflate the latter (white nationalism) with the former (racism and xenophobia). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, WP:V is policy - the Fitzsimons quote is among five of the six references in the lede which fail that policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has a valid reference, then it cannot fail WP:V. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Body of the article has no content on modern use of the Eureka Rebellion/flag in white nationalist movements in Australia which is the ostensible subject of the article. There may well be other RS on that subject matter but an effort should be made to cover it in that article before forking if it becomes unwieldy. Parts from the intro could be incorporated into political legacy in the main article. Section about colonial attitudes towards the Chinese could be incorporated into Racism in Australia or Asian Australians if not appropriate for the Eureka Rebellion article. Chaste Krassley (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There is no consensus to delete the article. There are good arguments to redirect, merge, or even keep and rewrite the article, but these arguments have not come to a clear conclusion. Continued discussion about a redirect, merge, or rewrite can take place outside of AfD. Malinaccier (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nadir (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)

WP:NOTDICT, specifically the section WP:WORDISSUBJECT. This article contains nothing but definitions. There is no particular definition or concept that is the subject of the article, even a broad concept. It is original research, citing example usage to justify it's claims about term meaning, which have not been made anywhere else. Apart from dictionary entries, I don't see sources exploring any of the concepts mentioned here or saying anything meaningful about them beyond their definition. What content is there for us to write an article about? Daask (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge to Glossary of astronomy: while there is use of this term in WP:RS, I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV about it. @Praemonitus: Re the merge target: zenith is not much better than this one on the DICDEF side, and to my surprise the glossary does not list nadir. I'd be for merging into the glossary only a very short description, similar to its entry on zenith. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 23:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the redirect nadir (astronomy) to the nadir (disambiguation) page and a brief entry on the Glossary of astronomy article. Praemonitus (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: my thought would be to either merge into the zenith article (where it is mentioned), or to add an entry to the Glossary of astronomy article and redirect there. Praemonitus (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Many of the pages that link to Nadir are not using the word in an astronomical sense. Some use it in the medical sense or in the figurative sense. Others, like Hummingbird, use it to mean the physically lowest point of something, e.g. nadir of the dive. A link to Glossary of astronomy from those cases would be baffling. It seems very reasonable to add nadir to Glossary of astronomy, but I think that redirecting Nadir to point there could lead to a net increase in confusion unless we can remove all the non-astronomy links. Deleting might be tidier, or a soft link to wiktionary:nadir might be less confusing. Mgp28 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nadir (disambiguation). From the history this was some form of disambiguation stuff that over the years evolved into a separate, weak page. Do the redirect then repair the disambiguation (and perhaps the links). An hour or two of tedious editing. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. opinions to Delete, Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and also partially merge; Redirect to Nadir (disambiguation) as described by @Ldm1954: addresses issues raised above. I believe that the content describing the nadir on the page can be moved into the Glossary of astronomy, and that the medicine usage can be moved into Glossary of medicine. That way nothing is lost. The links can be left to be repaired as disambiguation links normally are. No reason to merge into Zenith in my opinion because the only important content is mostly a dictionary definition anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename: Since nadir and zenith are counterparts (in science), explaining one naturally also explains the other. I think it makes sense to keep their scientific explanations together. Similar to Praemonitus' suggestion, we could:
    "Zenith": move to "Zenith and nadir", with hatnotes pointing to both z&n disambig pages.
    "Nadir": redirect to "Zenith and nadir".
    Glossary of astronomy could have a brief entry with a {{main|Zenith and nadir}} section hatnote.
    Pages using "nadir" metaphorically should use an inline wiktionary link instead.-Ich (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it's either merge or redirect, but consensus is not yet clear as to which.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Slovenia–Ukraine relations. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Bratislava

[edit]
Embassy of Ukraine, Bratislava (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 largely based on a primary source merely confirms it exists. Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Slovenia–Ukraine relations, the embassy itself is not notable Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to M. S. Narayana filmography. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhajantrilu

[edit]
Bhajantrilu (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 Wikipedia:Notability (films). The longer Idlebrain.com source is the only significant source. Nowrunning and Indiaglitz (only 2 sources here, 1 of which is very short) are both considered unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. Consider a redirect to M. S. Narayana [35].

A search in Telugu [36] yields nothing. Surprisingly, the review doesn't mention character names — are all the characters unnamed? DareshMohan (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I also see a very generic deletion nomination statement that could be used with just about any article, it lacks any specificity. It doesn't demonstrate that a BEFORE had been done by the nominator before proposing deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Litten

[edit]
Friedrich Litten (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 notable on his own. Fails GNG. Perhaps could be merged into a list but, not notable on his own. NeoJade Talk/Contribs 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Telugu films of 2011. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vykuntapali

[edit]
Vykuntapali (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 Wikipedia:Notability (films). The film did not receive significant coverage in production to be deemed notable. The release of the film's logo, its music and the film itself seem routine. Both reviews [39] [40] are deemed not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. Some sources are questionable [41].

There is one Indiaglitz source. Although Indiaglitz is mentioned as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force, if there are many articles on a film during the early 2000s, it should be deemed significant, but in this case, there is only one article.

If this article was a draft, it wouldn't pass Articles for creation. Since the article is older than 90 days, moving to a draft isn't an option without an AfD. DareshMohan (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draško Bogdanović

[edit]
Draško Bogdanović (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)

There is only one source (a blog) in the article which discusses the subject. It says he won an award but that is unsourced. I haven't been able to find any sources that discuss him or his work in any meaningful sense. Nothing that suggests he would pass WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, or even general notability. Griboski (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like WP:PROMO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Trammell

[edit]
Isaiah Trammell (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 evidence of any notability to pass WP:GNG, sources presented are all articles about the same incident, which would likely mark the subject as a WP:1E case. The event's notability itself seems questionable, so I don't see how this could even be a redirect or merge target, and there's clearly not enough coverage of the person who this biography is written about beyond that for there to be an article about him specifically. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Navarrete

[edit]
Leonel Navarrete (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)

Poorly sourced footballer. I did find this, but I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_August_30&oldid=1244428794"