Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 07	November 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Owl Creek Quickstep

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

An obscure 19th century tune --Altenmann >talk 18:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Wind Symphony's Percussion Ensemble

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

Subgroup of an ensemble that currently does not have a page. The Singapore Wind Symphony may be notable from my research, but the percussion ensemble is not. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Singapore. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection Pictures Studio

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

I have failed to find any independent and secondary coverage of this company, much less anything that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH, just database listings and self-published sources such as social media profiles. I draftified it but it was returned to mainspace, so draftification isn't an option here – besides, I do not think that sources exist at this point.

The only claims to notability made in the article are that the company has worked on notable films and worked together with notable companies – but notability is not inherited. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Maharashtra. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vance (tennis)

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

Fails to meet notability or significant coverage criteria. Played 2 ATP Tour matches in doubles and lost both. Highest ranking of 765. Shrug02 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Across Mt. Wati

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria to qualify for articles. But this just states that the film exists, which is not automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG.
Two of the three footnotes here, however, are just tangential verification of geographic facts about a mountain that features in this film's plot, which are not about this film for the purposes of helping to establish the notability of this film —and while there is one footnote that is about this film, that isn't enough all by itself, and we would need to see several sources about the film before it passed GNG. (It also warrants note that even the one footnote that is about this film was one I had to search for and recover as it initially just redirected me to the publication's front page due to an error in its URL — but for an article that's barely a week old because the film premiered a matter of days ago, that's not so much a "sometimes newspapers move their content to new URLs after the fact" issue as it is a WP:CIR issue.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film has more sourcing, and I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much deeper knowledge of where to find good Ugandan sourcing than I've got can find more coverage to salvage it with, but a film's mere existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just one hit of coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Uganda. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Stratton

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

Non-notable performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. All references are mentions of subject in articles about podcasts/live appearances, no significant coverage found in Google News. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Michigan. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Chandler

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

Prod was formerly tried. A career consisting of a cup game, 13 games in the USL First Division and some failed trials is a very weak claim to notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Norway, and Colorado. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Ramaswami

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

WP:BLP of an unelected political candidate, not demonstrating that he would pass the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get Wikipedia articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this shows neither of those things at all, and is basically just a campaign brochure referenced entirely to the run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate everywhere can always show, rather than any evidence that his unsuccessful candidacy will still be of enduring significance into the 2030s or 2040s.
We're writing history here, not news. The notability question isn't "has he been temporarily in the news cycle recently", it's "has he accomplished anything so overwhelmingly significant that people will still be looking for information about him decades from now", and this is completely failing to demonstrate that the answer to that question would be yes. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Rodríguez

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, local bar singer, participated in a show but did not even win. [https://www.facebook.com/p/Ani-Rodriguez-Sarmiento-100044291116682/ Is still active according to Facebook, but as an Amy Winehouse impersonator. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Balachandran

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

Movie maker does movie making things. While the movies are notable, this guy doesn't seem to be. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Businesspeople. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tamil Nadu and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOEARLY. DareshMohan (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages

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

The topics "Regular sound correspondences between Uralic languages" and "Historical phonology of Hungarian" are both notable. However, this topic does not have notability independent of those topics; Hungarian does not play such a critical role in Uralic reconstruction as to justify the existence of this page. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Stockhausenfan (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. Suggest rename and refactor, perhaps indeed as Historical phonology of Hungarian. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Tropylium, we don't rename as part of an AFD closure. Are you voting Keep? If this article is Kept, you can discuss retitling the article and changing its focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose that is strictly speaking keep w/ different discussion required afterwards. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Let’s be honest about some facts here: (1) it’s completely unreferenced and nobody is making any effort to find sources, (2) changing the title of this essay is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and (3) it’s most likely original research. It’s time to source this and fix it, or delete it. If you want to fix this, but need more than a few days, Draftify it yourself. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a shame that this article isn't sourced, but a search on G-Books and G-Scholar for "uralic languages hungarian" indicates that sources do exist. For example, g-book, other g-book, and these articles [1], [2]. It is possible that this information could be merged into Hungarian phonology, but that article is already quite long. It also does not this kind of comparison. Lamona (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the title, the content of the article is ultimately about the historical phonology of Hungarian, which is a notable topic. So I think all that is needed on that front is a title change, as proposed by Trɔpʏliʊm. On the other hand, I do share Bearian's concerns about WP:OR, particularly since this is the sort of topic that attracts crackpots and misinformation. What reassures me on that front is that all of the information passes a basic smell test, and I was able to verify a few of the lexical reconstructions, which would be the most likely target for OR. So I don't see any issues here that aren't repairable, or that are likely to pose a problem if it takes a while for them to be repaired. Botterweg (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Baldwin

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

Per WP:BLPPROD. Unsourced and WP:BEFORE search shows no WP:SIGCOV. मल्ल (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Gertoux

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

I accepted this at AFC after requesting the create protection was lifted in mainspace. I now have strong doubts that Gertoux has anything other than faux-notability, and believe that I was in error.
I have subsequently, with consensus, removed undue weight from thge article. However, I am struggling to check and verify references in the detail required. At AFC I needed simply to accept based on what I believed was a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done that - there was no immediate deletion process.
Now I am looking in greater detail I have found that it has an impenetrable referencing scheme, which often links in a tortuous manner to Gertoux's own works. Quotations in the references often do not match the alleged fact that is cited. Some I have removed. However, when studied in detail, each references appears susceptible to challenge in some manner.
My conclusion is that this is a WP:SOAPBOX and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas and concepts attributed to Gertoux. Furthermore that he fails WP:BIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG.
If deleted it shoudk again be salted 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Religion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Tamil Nadu. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets of the original creator edited the article? And if I read the article correctly, a predecessor did contest elections. but yes, I have a promo-concern. The Banner talk 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I don’t have specific information regarding sockpuppets. The predecessor, however, was primarily a fan club rather than a political party. If the fan club meets notability standards, it might warrant a separate article. The current political entity does not appear notable at this time, which I interpret as aligning with WP:TOOSOON.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Owais Al Qarni, what kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), recently founded by actor Vijay, has demonstrated significant grassroots support by mobilizing thousands of youth across Tamil Nadu, positioning itself as a notable new political force focused on addressing regional issues and youth empowerment. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no use for promo. What Wikipedia needs is relevant info, based on reliable, independent, quality sources. Per WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. There is ample evidence of Vijay founding the party. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the party has not participated in any elections, doesn't make it less notable, the party was created 9 months ago from a 15 years old philanthropic fan club, especially since the recent massive political conference, TVK has already been established to be notable party in Tamil Nadu politics, as it was created by a very popular actor in India, also already got millions of memberships, the mainstream media has been covering everything, the article is supported with lots of reliable sources with significant coverage meeting the criterias of WP:GNG, and they have become more active in the past months with announcements of policies and resolutions and will probably be actively engaging in more political activities and campaign for the 2026 election. Yarohj (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's true

I agree to the point 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is enough and more evidence to prove that this is a political party with a massive public base

But I disagree the need to be deleted as it is a party created by a well known personality in India and has a high chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections by a high margin and a chance of forming a state government 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cringe

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV on the band itself, only the band lead's relationship with Rachael Ray. मल्ल (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there is a short staff wriiten AllMusic bio here, and staff written album reviews here and here. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and my own search for more coverage. Melodic (magazine) has an even longer bio and a review. Here we have a review in Impose (magazine). The Seattle Post-Intelligencer review [3] is blocked in Europe, lol. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune also had a review [4], too short to count for notability. Some other reviews are found here, here and here and [5] and here, but I'm not familiar with the outlets (or the genre), but see that some of them are used in other articles. Geschichte (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surcingle belt

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

This article has absolutely no references and through my online searches I cannot find any reliable ones to add. The page has been abandoned for ten years and I think the subject is niche enough to not warrant its own page. Jolielover (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found the links as said here?

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chato, Peru

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

The one source linked is invalid and I am unable to find any source at all proving this place is real. Might be a hoax article. Jolielover (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Left Unplugged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in Google news or books which is very unusual for an American organization. The 2 sources are from 2008 and it is not known if it got any coverage ever since. The San Francisco Chronicle source is local as per WP:AUD.LibStar (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and California. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I conducted a deep search for sources, but nothing was found discussing the subject. What came close with several mention is a similar name of No Child Left Behind Act- an act of the US congress. This article as it is fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Paparusso

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

Declined at WP:AFC but moved to main space, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, being the manager of a non-notable influencer isn't notable... The influencer doesn't seem to have an article here. [6] is a PR item, a non-RS. The rest of the article reads as a CV of a production company person, which seems PROMO at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is not notable for an article. Of all footnotes in the article just two discussed the subject in WP:SIGCOV and I am not sure of the reliability of those two sources. His notably heavily relies on his management of a social media influencer with purported over 160 million followers on TikTok and being 5th most followed on Instagram. This manager fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Music, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarians FC

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Demt1298 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mongolia. Demt1298 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Mongolia – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Bajaj

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

Notability is dubious. Fails WP:FILMMAKER or WP:ACTOR. B-Factor (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. B-Factor (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conducted searche for sources but nothing was found to indicate anything close to notability. The three footnotes in the article are nothing. They are not reliable and they lack WP:SIGCOV of the actor. This actor fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena

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

The only notability this new political party has is that it seeks to present an imprisoned gangster, Lawrence Bishnoi, as a political candidate. This is very recent news. All of the sources are either about that or about Bishnoi himself. None has any significant coverage of either the party or of Shukla, the founder of the party. Although not relevant to the notability of the party, I'm very curious as to why the party would sponsor a convicted murderer as a candidate for the Indian Assembly election. Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timur's Gates

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

WP:PROD reverted. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources (which the two in the article currently are not). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Uzbekistan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Mosh Fest

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Wisconsin. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I found was this one single page from a book dropping its name once without SIGCOV. [7] Other than that, nothing to be found. Doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing I can find in Gnews or Gnewspapers. The one source in the comment above is fine, but that seems to be all there is. Primary sourcing is now used in the article... Defunct event that doesn't seem to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. Conducted search but nothing was found mentioning or discussing the subject failing WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite flag

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

This article is most likely based on original research. There are no reliable sources about a distinct "Maronite flag." The white flag with a cedar is simply an earlier version of the Flag of Lebanon. Syphax98 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoxylum

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

The only source that is cited states that the current name is Cordyceps. IRMNMG concurs that Hypoxylon is a synonym of Cordyceps.[8] William Avery (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. William Avery (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, this is just a synonym of Cordyceps, barring confusion with Hypoxylon which is a valid and quite different genus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Water Films and Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG and no WP:SIGCOV. A company, corporation or organization is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources I could find just list an address and an email address. Couldn't find any films they have ever made. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has been unsourced since its creation. A few IPs have blanked the content in the past claiming that "the company doesn't exist or has shut down". It was surprising that my search yielded no reliable sources. The few I found were all company profiles, but these primary sources are not helpful in establishing notability.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Adani

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

Non-notable individual. Sources are promotional and cited to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Only known for being a relative of Gautam Adani. See WP:INHERITED. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India requires better quality sourcing. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:BEFORE, subject passes WP:BASIC. And this article has persisted since 2018. AFD Nomination seems intentional or any paid agenda. B-Factor (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations Cultures

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

I'm failing to find anything about this film in Reliable Sources and don't think It meets WP:NFILM. Of course this may just be a product of the generic name and it being an Iranian film, but the lack of inclusion in normally permissive databases (IMDB, etc.) or on fa.wiki, doesn't fill me with confidence. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Islam. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Iran. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there - even IMDb doesn't have this listed. There are roughly two or three possibilities for this. The first is that the film was released prior to the Internet being as widely available and archived, so any sources for this were either not put on the internet or are no longer easily found. The second is that the film was never released to the English speaking market and as such, any sources are in another language. If it was released when the internet wasn't as robust as it is now, then the mix of other language and late 90s, early 2000s internet issues would definitely keep sources from being found - Google doesn't always crawl those like it would an English language source. The third and also likely is that the film just isn't notable. As the nominator stated, the film isn't mentioned on the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia, so that is somewhat a nod in that direction. We'd really need someone fluent in Farsi to take a look and verify that there aren't any sources for this. I used Google Translate to give me a Farsi translation of the title (assuming that it was the same title in Farsi) and there aren't a ton of sources that came up. I'll see if I can find someone willing to do a search, just to be on the safe side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on the listed Researcher/Script writer/Director/editor turns up a personal website on which he lists the series as running from 1994-1997, which may account for the lack of online sources as you say. He also seems to have adapted it into a book listed as being in English, but I can't figure out if it was also put out in Farsi. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MoEngage

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter albums

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

I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources that discuss Lil Wayne's Tha Carter albums as a series or a set. A ranking by Vibe and XXL Mag is pretty much it. The albums have been released in a period over two decades, with not thematic coherence. This seems WP:SYNTHy and unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [9][10][11]... Fram (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian again is a ranking, best to worst. The Billboard piece is a listicle of "Black Music Milestones", is three paragraphs long and mentions charting positions and sales. Doesn't discuss the albums as a series. UDiscoverMusic isn't listed at WP:MUSICRS and mostly talks about the first Tha Carter, not about the series as a whole. Where do reliable sources discuss the Tha Carter albums as a series, beyond the fact they got the same title? What makes Tha Carter Lil Wayne's Berlin Trilogy? As a series, what is its meaning, its cultural impact, its legacy? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards redirecting and/or draftifying. It's probably a viable search term. Not sure we need a ~~third~~ fourth location beyond the artist, individual album, and artist discography articles to discuss it. If there is a need, this article certainly doesn't demonstrate. It's basically just a (incomplete) list of release dates and singles. Put it back in the oven and let it cook. These albums have been out for years. There's no reason someone needed to sloppily rush this out yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely unnecessary synthesis of four different albums that all have their own articles and are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common. An article that ranks them against each other is pretty much a trivia exercise for reader enjoyment; see this example of how writers can compare anything to anything without the items being a distinct collective entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very dismissive. The artist treats them as a set, e.g. releasing specifically the singles from the albums as if they belong together[12]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[13]. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would releasing the singles together mean Lil Wayne treats them as a such "as if they belong together"? Could you elaborate? And while that would be interesting, an artist's own views on their work are secondary to how reliable sources consider it. The Vulture piece is more in depth though, but I'm not convinced as of yet. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first part was just a reply to the weird claim that they "are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common." The artist considers them as a series, as evidenced by the titles (duh) but also by specifically releasing the singles from these albums together, as if they belong together somehow. While I have no issue with the discussion about whether they are notable as a series and whether they should have a separate article or not, I was rather amazed about the claim that they aren't even a series. But the singles set is not an argument for or against deletion, the Vulture article (which you commented upon, thanks) is an argument against deletion and pro notability. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want on whether or not it's a "series" but that's the wrong argument. That ignores the much more precise Wikipedia policy cited by the nominator and myself: WP:SYNTH. As currently written, the article has nothing on what makes the albums a distinct collective entity, and merely lists release dates and singles and producers and guests stars. All info is repeated from the respective individual album articles. Any media article comparing/ranking them as a group is trivia as said above. Many of the article's existing sources are unreliable fansites and blogs, and the few reliable sources are about individual albums or songs. Recurring lyrical themes are valid but can be explained at Lil Wayne's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the sources in the article or the state of the article, that's not what AfD is about in general, unless it is so egregious that WP:TNT (or in less severe cases draftification) are the best solution. There are plenty of reliable sources treating these albums as a series (and yes, even ranking them means that people consider them a series, something related and comparable and at the same time distinct from the things not listed), and the Vulture article goes way indepth about them, treating them as a separate, important, aspect of his total oeuvre worth discussing as a group: "his Carter records occupy a specific place in his staggering discography [...] But what can looking back at the previous four installments tell us about Wayne as an artist? About how he’s evolved, and what his entire career means?" (that article calls them a "series" and "a project" as well). Fram (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comment above is rooted in multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON, conceptually. There just probably wouldn't much actual merging because I imagine much of this was aped from already existing articles in better shape. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism in Australia

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

The article does not abide by NPOV requirements. It infers that Indigenous Australians have been eliminated and that settler colonialism is an ongoing process. Nothing that the article might cover were it to be expanded could not be covered by the Australian frontier wars or history of Indigenous Australians articles.

Not a single claim in the article, except for that in the last sentence, is an encyclopaedic proposition. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this source indicates in the first line of its abstract that "Settler colonialism continues in Australia today." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Akers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fully fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. During a WP:BEFORE, no significant coverage was found. And why would there be, when he only played one cup game for Notts County as well as brief spells in obscure locales. Kept before (twice) due to a guideline that was scrapped and no longer exists. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nomation. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinapia

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

Fails WP:BAND, did not have significant coverage, and any coverage in reliable sources seems to be just regurgitations of press releases from their agency. Released one song that did not chart on any qualifying WP:CHART, then disbanded. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a related article for one of the singers, Eunwoo, has been proposed for deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they did chart on a recognised billboard chart, the World Digital Song Sales chart at a peak of 18. They also have reliable sources coverage such as Naver already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for charts at WP:MUSIC is: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." World Digital Song Sales isn't a national music chart and isn't listed as an acceptable chart at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS.
As far as the Naver articles you mentioned, of the three in the article, this and this are just regurgitations of the press releases from their agency and don't meet the definition of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" as described in WP:BAND. RachelTensions (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states "Genre-specific digital song sales and streaming songs charts should not be included unless a song did not chart on the respective all-genre Digital Song Sales or Streaming Songs charts and the genre's "hot" chart." so in these circumstances it is an acceptable chart. The better Naver ref is here, and there is significant coverage in this Billboard article here, more coverage here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the argument that the World Digital Song Sales chart is not a qualifying chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. It's a single digital release from a band with no SIGCOV and an arguably ONEEVENT lifetime! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Net Applications

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

not notable per this BretiPoaf1 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing OP meant per NCORP. I agree with that, but there is enough due weight coverage for the company's browser usage data to merge the criticism section into Usage share of web browsers#Differences in measurement. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as suggested in the prior comment seems fine. I'm ok with a brief mention there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ardennes

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

No independent RS on the page for a long time. I'm not seeing why this is considered notable to meet the standards for inclusion. I'm not really convinced a RD is necessary but as an ATD it could be redirected to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as current references are WP:PRSOURCEs either from the US or Iraq governments and "cannot be used towards claims of notability". Beyond that, there's literally nothing about this 2007 battle in my search - and considering the lack of independent sources I don't consider it a candidate for a merge or redirect regarding the Iraq War (it should be removed from the table in target article mentioned by nom). It does however share a name with Battle of the Bulge (in WW2) as that was called the "Ardennes Offensive", and there was also a Battle of the Ardennes (in WW1) but can't find any sources calling these "Operation Ardennes" so not a redirect candidate for these either. Molecular Pilot 09:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration (Doctor Who)

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

This article reads like a FANDOM page in its entirety. It fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it does not explain why this specific plot element is encyclopedic and is almost entirely plot summary. It is also already heavily detailed in Time Lord#Regeneration, rendering an article length treatment unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Speedy Keep: It very much does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it explains how the process came about out-of-universe, and how it has changed. It could be way better, and needs better referencing too, which would need a separate article, so the topic does not its own article. Also, this AfD is doubly strange, because even if failed the above parameters, it would still be a redirect and not deleted; and that the latter section is sourced mostly by primary sources and is way too overly detailed (and needs heavy editing to be encyclopedic). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Conner

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

Autobiography of a journalist, reads like a CV. The sources are all about articles he has written, but there are no articles about him. None of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria apply and neither WP:ANYBIO. The writer's own works are not independent so no WP:GNG pass. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Washington, D.C.. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first thing its creator did on WP was this page. Per nom, CV-like, lacks WP:GNG SIGCOV. A journalist journalisting is not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article reads like a resume, which goes against Wikipedia's guidelines, as it is not a platform for personal resumes. As such, it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:GNG). Baqi:) (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to 2028 United States presidential election. All this article contains is speculation about who might run and some polls. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should deal in facts not speculation. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a topic worth having a Wikipedia article over. The fact that it is being speculated in the media just shows the need for such an article. 45.177.176.17 (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, as has been done in the past. There is currently nothing to be said here that can't be said in the main article until the separate page is needed. That might not be too far off, but this isn't the place for this outdated speculation. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Wholely speculative material. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as a viable ATD, per Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to 2028 United States presidential election. All this article contains is speculation about who might run and some polls. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should deal in facts not speculation. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn’t warrant deletion, only removal of unnecessary, speculative or otherwise unsourced information. It’ll likely be a very short period of time before relevant information is available. For example, electoral college seats, candidates expressing interests (or those ruling themselves out), primary timelines. It would be futile to delete only to have to be recreated after only a short period of time. 148.252.147.58 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Keep. InterDoesWiki (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both users above. Keep this article. 24.208.3.72 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election, as has been done in the past. There is currently nothing to be said here that can't be said in the main article until the separate page is needed. That might not be too far off, but this isn't the place for this outdated speculation. Reywas92^Talk 15:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Wholely speculative material. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2028 United States presidential election as a viable ATD, per Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica)

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing much found suggesting notability criteria have been met JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Jamaica. JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few sources online and added them to the article when I saw this AfD, and have been waiting to see what other editors' views were. The school has existed for 99 years and evidently educates girls from some influential families, with at least one notable former student, Staceyann Chin. Safiya Sinclair, who didn't attend the school, mentions it in her memoir: "all the brightest girls either went to Montego Bay High School or Mount Alvernia High School". Because of these factors, I'd be surprised if there were not references in offline sources, memoirs, local history, that we are just not finding online. Tacyarg (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - What we need are sources about the school from which an article can be written, and those remain hard to find, but per Tacyarg, there seems to be a prima facie case for a presumption of notability here. For instance, various reliable sources, referring to former students, call this school "prestigious". E.g. [14], [15]. This accords with Tacyarg's searches too regarding thw words of Safiya Sinclair. There are research case studies based in the school such as [16]. It was formerly St. James Academy, under which name it is a little tricky to search (many false hits), but clearly was established in 1925. Unfortunate that we only have primary sources [17] from which the article can be written, yet it looks notable. There is a danger that if we synthesise primary sources we end up with original research, a secondary history article and not a tertiary encyclopaedic one. I'd consider a redirect but I don't think anything is appropriate. So I think we keep it and proceed with caution. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a further review of content added by Tacyarg. But, of course, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at 99 years old, notability can indeed be presumed and there is that hint of notability from the sources found by Tacyarg. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock

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

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC) The person doesn't pass the threshold for having their own article and despite having considered acceptable red ir or mrge target, there's not quite a right one. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm open to redirect to Mortification (band) if there isn't a consensus to straight up delete, but I request it be DELETE and redirect so it doesn't get re-spawned into an article of its own single handedly by an editor down the road. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to try and find sources for this guy. He was in one of the best-selling heavy metal bands in Australia, at the peak of their popularity, so there's probably stuff out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORG Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Provisional) Keep vote~~, because there's an HM interview with/profile of him in existence. It needs to be accessed and cited, but accessibility doesn't determine notability, the coverage need only *exist*.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Ah, it's accessible online: here it is--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that he's covered in an interview by an independent reliable source would confer notability, but it's just one source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything else. HM mentioned back in 2008 that he doesn't do media appearances, so that one source might be all that there is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability for musician (I can't find any traces of a major award)Tesleemah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO#6. Prominent member of Mortification, Paramaecium and Horde (only member). The later is an obvious merge target if people want to ignore the notability guidelines which seems to be the norm these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BANDMEMBER, he needs coverage about him specifically in order to be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can actually read what BANDMEMBER says and not tell us porkies. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So totally different to how you characterized it above. So let's look at what it actually says, "unless they have demonstrated individual notability" such as by being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." which directly satisfies the relevant SNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular. You're saying that they're independently notable because of the bands that they're in and thus should have their own article, and so, because they should have their own article, they're notable apart from those bands.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). He was in multiple bands, but the article on Mortification is the only one with any meaningful information on him and it seems to be his most prominent role, with a lot of the sources that discuss him mentioning that as his most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (~~which he was a member of longer than Mortification~~) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete. We have a verified passing of a notability guide, and if you choose to pretend that doesn't count we have a good alternative to deletion and no one has raised any pressing BLP issues there is no actual justification for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a verified passing of notability. SNG doesn't over-ride GNG expect for some VERY special cases such as with academic textbooks. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). This is an extremely common outcome as an alternative to deleting where, as in this case, the person’s sources are terrible, but they did tour internationally in a band. His solo band projects might also have the same fate. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would his solo project be redirected? I can get pages of results discussing Horde, including in multiple books. And that's the only solo project of his. I'd argue that it's equally a possible redirect target as Mortification.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, there's only a singular source, and at that an interview, about Sherlock himself. Plenty of coverage for his bands, including Horde. To my regret, then, I'm going to go with delete here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band) as an ATD. As per the discussion above, this is really not very easy. Horde_(band) would be an alternative target for redirection and I'd argue a better one except for the current votes for Mortification, which at least ensures a solid result from this very fluid AfD more likely! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this discussion about NBAND, I suggest that a decision be pending the result of that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a longer term target. Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortification. Per nom, the subject fails WP:GNG. Although he has been a member of notable bands, WP:INHERENTWEB comes into play. I think this is the best alternative to deleting the article altogether.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Federal Police killed in the line of duty

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

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, also no sources. Absolutiva (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Crime, Police, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge

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

Boulder Bridge exists, as does Ross Drive Bridge; I see no reason why we should have a one-line stub simply because these are listed on the NRHP together; even if expanded out this would still be a content fork of the two sub-articles. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington, D.C.. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm still shaking my head at this. Pointless. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, pointless. Athel cb (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2007 article Boulder Bridge which encompasses both as a U.S. National Register of Historic Places listing. The author who created this one in 2015 probably didn't notice the NRHP article was already in place. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avdyunin

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

Very few people have this surname. As far as I can tell, there should be no expectation of every surname having its own article. Additionally, there is only one person listed in this article, and they themselves are not even notable enough for their own article, so why should their surname have an article? Harperawl (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avdonin. Quite clear as an ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it should be changed to a redirect instead. Will do! (Once discussion is closed, I guess.) Harperawl (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby County Airport (Missouri)

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

I ran across this trying to source unreferenced Missouri articles for the ongoing unreferenced articles drive. While the essay WP:NAIRPORT suggests that municipal general aviation airports are likely to be notable, that essay does not carry the weight of policy and I'm not finding any substantial coverage for this at all. This from MODOT looks substantive at first, but actually only 4 sentences is about this airport and the rest is about general aviation in the state as a whole. Newspapers.com searching in Missouri for this airport turns up coverage of airports in Alabama and Memphis, but only a statement that a large crowd turned out for a BBQ pork dinner about this airport and a second brief statement announcing a fly-in at the airport in 1961. I know these municipal airports are usually notable, but I don't see a WP:GNG pass here due to the only coverage a fairly thorough WP:BEFORE is bringing up that isn't registration-type listings are the four sentences from MODOT and the two one-sentence passing mentions. The NAIRPORT essay does not carry the weight of policy. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:5P establishes that Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and airports are a standard part of such works. WP:V is the guiding line beyond that, and that is satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shelby County as an ATD. BTW, Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer (yes, I know it's an essay but still) and WP:GEOLAND tells us that artificial features related to infrastructure need to pass WP:GNG which this does not. So if the redirect target doesn't work for folks, then delete... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hodges

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Old AFD is not for this person, it was for someone church-related. Geschichte (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, diplomatic roles held do not confer notability, coverage singularly lacking - there's more coverage out there, especially in Indian/Chennai media but it's all routine 'consul general says thing about trade'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Deletion is warranted as the subject does not meet WP:GNG Diplomatic roles alone do not establish notability. Baqi:) (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, consuls like this one even less so. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantial that meets the GNG.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Tokiwa

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

When one season in Singapore is all this player has done, notability is very questionable. Sources are lacking significant in-depth information about the player as well as independence (all Gekisaka sources in tha ja:wiki version are routine), and I don't think one piece in Town News is enough to make an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Baba Bhag Singh University

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions. Sant Baba Bhag Singh University lacks significant academic achievements, industry recognition, or research contributions to justify a dedicated article. The content is overly promotional, with honorific language suggesting it may have been authored by an individual affiliated with the university. Furthermore, the cited sources are either critical of the university’s legitimacy or do not contribute to establishing its notability. Previous attempts to address these issues through WP:PROD were removed without resolution. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. GrabUp - Talk 03:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The University lacks SIGCOV sources, which fails it to meet WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Also, no appropriate redirect target found so no WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 03:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully accredited degree issuing University recognized by the University Grants Commission (India) added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Could you please specify any guideline that states being a ‘fully accredited, degree-issuing university recognized by the University Grants Commission (India)’ makes a university notable? I don’t see any. WP:NSCHOOL clearly states that it requires WP:SIGCOV coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources—to meet notability criteria, and the sources you provided are not significant at all. GrabUp - Talk 05:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Recognition by UGC India do not make them notable. as mentioned by @GrabUp this university fails to meet much of the guidelines/criteria of Wikipedia. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that source you add must be reliable and should not be paid. Small News Reporting services usually are paid. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, need to improve UzbukUdash (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash: Why are you low-effort voting on multiple AfDs without providing guideline-specific arguments? How do you think this article meets notability? Please clarify. GrabUp - Talk 05:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC provided doc that confirmed the official prove that this institution exists from 2017, can check 0902037_SANT-BABA-BHAG-ANNEX2.pdf pass Notability. the text in the body is not efficient in my opinion need to elaborate thats why I'm focusing on IMPROVE. thanks UzbukUdash (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash: First, read WP:NSCHOOL. Institutes are not inherently notable just because they exists; it needs to have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet notability. GrabUp - Talk 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash Looks like you are not familiar with the concept of Notability being discussed here. Please see Wikipedia:Notability & Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actual coverage of this university beyond the simple fact that the university exists is quite sparse. This may have passed muster before 2017, but certainly not now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Tone is not the issue at hand (altogether now: deletion is not cleanup) but notability most certainly is. On the issue of degree awarding institutions, WP:schooloutcomes tells us that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable" but also tells us that Schooloutcomes should be AVOIDED in deletion discussions. The standards are WP:N and WP:ORG - and this institution fails both. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 SNOW/withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon McMahon

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

McMahon is a former high school government teacher. McMahon lacks independent in-depth coverage and fails to satisfy notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Radio, Law, Politics, Internet, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's wrong with e.g. the Time source already in the article? I also found more reviews/coverage of her book, which the nominator neglected to mention [18][19][20] Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bewildered by this nomination, TBH. There is clearly ample coverage presented in the article to pass WP:GNG. I mean, TIME, good grief! WP:BEFORE really not required... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is clearly passes WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate high-quality sources in the article to meet GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that I was mistaken. Sorry. Firecat93 (talk) 16:09, 8 November 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.

Tsui Teh-li

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

Recipient of a scouting award. Appears to fail WP:GNG. I was unable to find any other sources in a Google news search. Perhaps there are some Chinese-language sources available. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Scouting, and China. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they don't meet WP:BIO. The only source I could find for the award is the one in the article, which is WP:PRIMARY from the offical scouts website and per BIO can't count towards notability, while also not meeting WP:SIGCOV cause it's literally a list with no elaboration - it says his name + the year (btw it's dead now, check internet archive from 2022). Additionally, thee's nothing else relating to him found in English searches. I conducted Chinese searches on both Baidu (mainland China search engine because it says "Scouts of China") - which returned a Baidu Baike article (Chinese Wikipedia but run by Baidu) - it's UGI and a stub with only a single non-WP:SIGCOV WP:PRIMARY ref. There's also people who happened to have the same name, like a victim of a Korean homicide. On Google (but in Chinese, because it says "This Taiwan-related article..." at the bottom), there's only the same Baidu Baike hit, DouYin Baike (basically the same as Baidu Baike - all UGI), as well as non-WP:SIGCOV things like his name (without elaboration) in a list of past principles of a high school, and his name in a list (without elaboration) of past government officials. He also appears to have written a book, but he is no-where near meeting WP:NAUTHOR for that book. Molecular Pilot 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award: This information is already contained in List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award Demt1298 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series) as an WP:ATD. The List of Mission: Impossible characters is for characters from the original TV series; it omits the late-80s revival let alone the film series. The film series article is a better redirect target. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more opinions on this article. By the way, the nominator didn't sign their statement but it was Toby2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown (3rd nomination)

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

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS although notable at first sustained coverage died off quick. There has been no expanded reports on the incident. A crash of a heavy aircraft with fatalities under 10 has no notability in itself.

@ me in the below discussion when you comment so i can get the fastest response or see your comment ASAP. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Sudan. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a scheduled flight or a passenger flight (these are generally considered automatically notable), and it appears to have been a military flight or military-operated flight, in which case a shootdown isn't notable, it's fortunes of war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this article when it was said that this was a civilian cargo plane, but since now it is practiacally confirmed it was a military one, and since no important figures were killed, and there were no particular consequences nor continued coverage I think we Can delete it. - SignorPignolini _Talk 06:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was going to suggest a merge but I see there's already a brief, but sufficient, mention at the bottom of the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) § United Arab Emirates section. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Liberty Forum

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating page for deletion for the following issues per WP:DP.

1. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content

The article contains large amounts of puffery and reads like an advertisement. Majority of the article is a list of speakers at conventions, mentions of their books, and external bare urls to their blogs or other websites.

2. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

The article does not list sources for claims of speakers at various conferences. Several existing sources are primary sources.

The article makes false and misleading claims, engages in original research with no sources, and presents their subjects in a promotional manner.

Example 1, stating that "James O'Keefe – journalist whose investigations have exposed corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and NPR". James O'Keefe is a far-right activist that uses deceptively edited videos to attack mainstream media sources and progressive sources, and whose videos exposing corruption have been verifiably proven false, as in the case with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.

Example 2, stating "Ben Swann – Emmy Award-winning journalist" but not including any mention that he is a well-known, notable conspiracy theorist.

Example 3: stating "Stefan Molyneux – host of Freedomain Radio" but not mentioning how he is best known as a white nationalist.

3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

I cannot find reliable, non-primary sources for the large majority of the claimed speakers at these conventions.

4. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Majority of the individuals listed fail notability requirements. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in social nudity

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

This article hardly addresses issues, and is apparent from the get go with the introductory paragraph rehashing info that can be found in many other articles on nudism such as Nudity, Naturism, and Nude recreation, etc.. The article on Nudity especially has multiple sections dedicated to issues, in regards to its legality, cultural acceptance, and child development. The terminology section is totally unnecessary for an article about the issues related to a concept as it does not address any terms related to issues, only the history of naturist related terms themselves. Diversity in nudist clubs is not relevant to its issues unless those issues are stated, discussed, and sourced, which they are not, and would be more appropriate on articles covering specific cultural attitudes towards nudity as shown in https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Nudity#Cultural_differences. The other issues and legality sections are short and can be moved elsewhere, other articles about nudity and naturism have subsections covering particular countries where these tidbits may be more relevant. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anything useful and not redundant here can be merged with one of the existing articles mentioned.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I poked around Talk:Naturism and apparently Issues in social nudity was intentionally spun off from Naturism in as part of an effort to reduce the size of that article. I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not to keep this article, but any editor wanting to move content from this article back to Naturism should be aware of the issues there. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genital jewellery

AfDs for this article:

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

This article already exists, with more elaboration, sources, and history, under Genital piercing. Non-piercing items (such as clamps and cockrings) are tools moreso than jewellery, and are not covered here in any detail. Types of items used in piercing, such as barbells and rings, are found under Body piercing jewellery and covered somewhat in Body piercing. These items are also not specific to genital piercing. Buttplugs have their own article (and are a toy moreso than an item of jewellery) and nipples are not genitals (and have their own article, under Nipple piercing). This article, at most, works as a wiktionary entry, or as a subheading under the genital piercing article if anything exists that fits better under the jewellery label than the sex toy or tool label without being a piercing (which, as it stands, does not). Its pageviews are significantly lower than Genital piercing, and the title would work better as a redirect if it were kept. Micahtchi (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Sexuality and gender. Micahtchi (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genital piercing: Info in article can be integrated in Genital piercing if not already included Demt1298 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC-Cymru

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

Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As WP:ATD-R. Where the proposed target article covers the parent org ("WCIA") with which this charity org ("CEWC") was reputedly merged/amalgamated in 2014. And its website also redirected to that of the parent. We may as well do the same (merge/redirect). Otherwise, similar to the nom, I'm not convinced that there's sufficient coverage to establish independent notability or support a stand-alone article. Guliolopez (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEWC Northern Ireland. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

~~Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons.~~ Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:

CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...

My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:LibStar, this is not a proper bundled nomination, you might have tagged CEWC-Cymru but this nomination isn't formatted properly. If you wish it to be included, please review WP:AFD instructions for multiple page nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate CEWC-Cymru separately now. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez, a new AfD is set up here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEWC-Cymru, you may wish to copy your comment across. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the ping @LibStar:. I've struck and moved my !vote on what to do with the Welsh charity title (CEWC Cymru) to the new AfD. In terms of the Northern Irish charity title (CEWC Northern Ireland), and for clarity, my recommendation remains to merge/redirect to Council for Education in World Citizenship. Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest

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

While the national selections for the Eurovision Song Contest of each individual country may be considered notable, e.g. Melodifestivalen in Sweden or Melodi Grand Prix in Norway, and while I do believe there is scope for including information on individual country's selections within their own articles (see San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest#Selection process for a good example of this), I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. I believe that this article contravenes several of Wikipedia's guidelines, including WP:LISTCRIT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (specifically point 2 on "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"), and in parts I believe this also falls down on WP:GNG as well as WP:OR (given the vast majority of information here is unsourced). I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Lists, and Europe. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and the set seems notable anyway; the informations are not ’loosely" associated. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. W/rt/ your statement that I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. It is inarguable that the Eurovision selection process has been given substantial attention by RS, and that therefore that this list meets WP:NLIST. Addressing arguments point by point:
1. LISTCRIT: How is this list not specific enough for that to be a problem?
2. NOTDIR: Again, this list is very specific, so no issue with "loosely associated topics"
3. GNG: Relevant criterion is NLIST, which is met as per above (and arguably irrelevant anyhow per Mushy Yank)
4. OR: I fail to see how this list has any problems with that, rather than WP:verifiability, to which I point to WP:NOTCLEANUP
5. I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. The high-level main Eurovision contest article would be far too unwieldy with all this information
. Mach61 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the table only. While selections are an important part of the Eurovision realm, this table/list format is not appropriate to convey that. The prose describing how entries are selected is all that is needed and in fact should be expanded as how entries were selected tends to be a point of discussion for the contest. I don't understand the point of the table. It is not user friendly, not accessible, and just serves as a dumping ground for unsourced information. Modern contests could have readily accessible refs, but the older ones are not as prevalent or accessible. That on its face is not the biggest issue, but rather every process is different depending on country, so grouping things by labels as just "national final" or "internal selection" is far too vague. Adding additional context would further create readability issues. Some select just a singer internally, some a song internally, some both the singer and the song internally; meanwhile some national finals have an open call for applicants, others have contestants that are internally selected, and yet still others have one singer they've selected singing singer multiple songs for consideration. If I want to see how a country selects their entry, I can navigate to their country's article (i.e. San Marino, Romania, etc.). There are far too many variables to present this information at this manufactured high level. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 Votes to the effect of "Keep under the condition that..." shouldn't be cast, since discussions about improving the article belong on the article talk page, not here. Mach61 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. If it's on the fence, I think the evidence presented leans more towards delete. There should be a place that discusses how entries are selected, but currently this article is not that in any meaningful way. The contest's website only discusses this with fewer than a dozen sentences, something which as of now could fully be part of the Eurovision Song Contest article without undue weight. Grk1011 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 I think you misunderstand the page. It is not a regular article about the selection process that happens to contain a large list, it is a list-class page of all the broadcasters each Eurovision participant uses for their national finals, that just so happens to have some explication of the process for context. I agree that the non-list conent could be merged into the main article easily enough, but the list is the entire point of the page. You ought to be voting "Delete" Mach61 19:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I !voted delete overall. The list is the worst part of this article for the reasons I listed above. This type of information is not properly conveyed in list form as it varies so much from country to country. Between the columns being misleading (there are more than just "national final" and "internal selection") and there being no way to compare country vs country via sort or quantity of any well-defined metric, I'm not sure what we're doing here. Grk1011 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sims2aholic8 Four of the six columns on the table (Country, debut and latest entry, broadcaster) show what ought to be pretty uncontreversial information, which means any country-to-country variance must be in cases where a year a competing country participated, they did not run either a clear internal selection or national final. May you give a specific example of that happening? To this non-Eurovision fan's eyes, all years seem to be neatly accounted for. Mach61 18:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lampad

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

There's only one source for these nymphs - a fragment of Alcman that says they are the torch-bearers of Hecate. The details about them being gifts from Zeus or what exactly they do are, as far as I can tell, either made up or a conflation of other details about Hecate. That they are torch-bearers of Hecate is something that can be noted in the relevant column on the nymph page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not a proposal to delete, but a proposal to merge to nymph. The scholiast on the Iliad, vi. 21, explaining "nymph", says that Alcman listed the Lampades (translated "Lampads" by Campbell) among the nymphs, and goes on to call them "those who carry torches and lights with Hecate" (Loeb Classical Library, Greek Lyric, vol. II, pp. 438, 439, accessible online through the Wikipedia Library). So that part is verified, although the part about being a gift from Zeus is not. Possibly that comes from an oblique reference to the followers of Hecate—it should not be dismissed out of hand, since we know that Zeus showed great favour to Hecate in gratitude for her support. In any case, it's still a matter of merging content into another article, and shouldn't have been brought to AFD. P Aculeius (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is dismissing it out of hand. I generally stay out of wikipedia's oblique bureaucratic processes and rather wish I'd kept to that. I'll just add the detail to the nymph page and not worry about the Lampad page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were dismissing it out of hand. I simply meant that the lack of a source at present did not mean that it was unlikely to be true, and thus worth removing without first attempting to find a source, as it might be if it seemed nonsensical. I am not sure what to make of the claim: it could be a genuine report of what an unidentified source says, or an inference perhaps stretched too far by a Wikipedia editor, or a misunderstanding of the source, or just an inexplicable statement. Since the rest of the content is verifiable, this claim seems at least plausible, and I would like to make certain that nobody here can figure out where it came from before excising it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the content is currently verifiable only because Michael Aurel and I already removed two other unverifiable claims. Though having said that, the claim that the Avernian nymphs are the same group is actually also unsourced. The source cited for that claim doesn't make it. He simply references Ovid's mention of them in an entry on Avernus (I didn't poke around thoroughly, but I couldn't find a source outside of Ovid for them, either).

The Avernian nymphs just happen to also be 'underworld nymphs'. But being related to Hecate is not the same as being a nymph of the underworld. I nominated it precisely because I had already tried to find a source for the claims and could not. Of course I would be happy if more sources *could* be found, because they sound fascinating, but I'm not holding my breath. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the nymphs mentioned by Ovid; I can't find any reliable source which links them with the Lampades, and the claim seems to come just from Theoi.com (which is notoriously unreliable). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. Though the Alcman fragment [21] is the only ancient source which mentions her, there are quite a few mythological figures who may only be mentioned in a single passage or fragment, but still be deserving of a separate article; notability is determined by coverage in secondary sources, not primary ones. In this instance, we have an article [22] on this fragment, which discusses these figures and their relation to a broader discussion of the connection between Hecate and torches; I think something about their significance in that context, based on Serafini, could be added to the article. I note that they are also mentioned (though briefly) in Jennifer Larson's Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. However, the statement about being a gift from Zeus to Hecate (for her "loyalty" in the Titanomachy?) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I can't find any source for it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I believe that the scholiast on Homer is a second ancient source. It's not clear to me whether everything he says about the Lampades is from Alcman, or if he is merely citing Alcman as a source mentioning them among the groups of nymphs. As for the reason that they might have been a gift to Hecate, it could just have been inferred that all of Hecate's authority as a goddess emanated from Zeus. As I recall, she was given a share of all three worlds (the heavens, the earth, and the underworld), which is a pretty broad set of things! I was hoping Morford & Lenardon might have something to say on it, but I couldn't find anything. P Aculeius (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, I would guess the latter, though it's a little hard to tell; it would be interesting to see if the scholion mentions them elsewhere, though an edition of the scholia minora might be a tricky one to hunt down. On the second point, it's possible; I'm sceptical, but would happily stand corrected. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that archive.org is fully functional again, and full text searches are available, here's a summary:
Calame offers no real interpretation, beyond that what the scholiast says is plausible, because of the strong association of Hekate and torches. Amusingly, though, he does suggests that one alternative could be to amend the text to read Limnad (the other being that they are, like the Thyades mentioned with them, to do with Dionysos, rather than Hekate).

Gantz (p.141) mentions they exist, but nothing more. His opinion is that the explanation of them being torchbearers of Hekate is probably the scholiast's own, but he gives no reason. Serafini (p. 18) seems to agree with this (but see Iles, below).

Larson uses the word but has nothing to say of them - fn. 76 simply states what the scholiast gives. The context in which they are mentioned is to do with the appearance of Dionysos in lyric and choral poetry. The important detail is the Thyades, the Lampades just happen to be in the fragment. Whilst literally true that she says something about them, it doesn't even merit being called 'mentioned in passing'. She doesn't even mention Calame's suggestion that they are also followers of Dionysos.

Serafini's paper is more about the association of Hecate and torches in general, and Hecate herself as the torch-bearer. I do not see what could be added from that article to here - no argument that hinges on the Lampades, or extra information given about them. But perhaps someone with better Italian would disagree.

An article by Sarah Iles Johnston's article argues that the 'goddesses with bright torches' mentioned in the Getty Hexameters are the Lampades (which would require the scholiast to be reporting something already in Alcman, or at least a tradition from the 5th century BCE - Iles Johnston assumes the former). Other interpretations are available. Bremmer seems to think they're Persephone and Hecate; Demeter and Persephone are another entirely plausible combo.

For the identification of the Lampades with the Avernian nymphs I can find only Theoi, which itself gives no citation, but simply gives the Alcman fragment for Lampades and then Ovid and Statius (incorrectly - the reference should be 2.6.100) for Avernian nymphs - notably neither quote has anything to do with Hecate or torches.
As to the strange detail of how Hecate acquired the Lampades, I have found a source - and it's the same source that gives us the claim (already removed by Michael Aurel) that their torches can drive people mad: Age of Mythology.

The in-game help section says this: These nymphs were the attendants of Hecate, an unbound Titaness, gifts from Zeus for her allegiance in the Titanomachy. The Lampades served their mistress unflinchingly, bearing torches for her through the dark places of the earth and underworld. The light of their torches brought visions to mortals and often the visions brought madness. The Lampades defended Hecate with their torches just as the Titaness herself fought in the wars of the gods.

This flavour text helps explain an in-game combat power of the Lampades, by which they can 'invoke chaos on units at range'. Its abilities 'chaotic realignment' turns a target neutral (by 'flashing her torch') and forces it to attack any unit nearby; 'Transfiguration' (again activated by a flash of the torch) turns the target into a chicken.

Based on the talk page of the user who created this article, I do not think it is implausible that these details find their origin there. Archive.org's first capture of the theoi article is 2006, and the game came out in 2002. But theoi itself was founded in 2000, so it is not impossible that the creators of this gaming, wanting to find units, powers, etc. that they could assign to Hecate, found the Lampades via theoi, and then expanded the idea so they had a bit more detail to stick in their flavour text. I don't think Age of Mythology is particularly renowned for its adherence to ancient sources.

What we can say for certain, then, is:

We have a single fragment of Alcman mentioning the Lampades. Scholars do not agree whether the scholiast's explanation is his own, or details that were also in Alcman. One scholar thinks that they might be referenced in the Getty Hexameters. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this digging. I've expanded the article a bit, and added new sources. I've held out on removing the unsourced paragraph in the interest of giving it a fair hearing, though I do think your explanation on the basis of the video game seems plausible; also, the latter sentence in the paragraph looks as though it has come from Theoi. [23] – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence may well come from there—but it merely restates what the article already says about being torch-bearing companions of Hecate.

I am not certain that the suggestion in one authority that the scholiast "invented" this detail isn't given undue weight here; all that we know of Greek myth comes from a small number of largely fragmentary sources, so it is quite likely that the scholiast reported what he had learned, or at least could infer from that knowledge (for instance, that Hecate's companions bore torches or lamps, presumably being goddesses like herself, and necessarily traveling by night, since that is when Hecate is abroad; and the Lampades are, by definition, the torch-bearing goddesses) rather than making up details that required pure invention on his part, which is how it reads now. I was merely indicating that we don't know whether this detail in the scholiast can be attributed to Alcman, or if the scholiast is our only known source for it.

As for their association with Hecate's reward for her rôle in the Titanomachy, that may be anyone's guess, since you haven't turned up any usable sources for it. If something turns up later, it can always be re-added. Thank you for expanding and improving the article! P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! The point you raise about the article seeming to imply a bit too much that the description of these figures was just a whimsical invention of a sort by a late commentator is fair (I've, for now, softened the language a little in that sentence). I had the same thought when writing that part, but was struggling to find a scholar who expressed an opposing view to Gantz in a clear manner: I don't think Serafini really has an opinion on the matter, Latte (cited in Davies's edition) says it's uncertain what Alcman thought of these nymphs, and regarding Calame, though he does point out that what the scholiast says is "quite possible", I'm not entirely sure whether by this he means it's "quite possible" that Alcman described the nymphs in the same way, or more generally that it makes sense that the scholiast would have made that association. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Harvey

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet standards of WP:NACADEMIC. Limited references, no significant expansion since last AFD in 2016, could not find more references.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I understand it, the nature of citations is that they are monotone increasing, so that once several qualified editors (Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, Vanamonde93) have opined that the subject passes WP:PROF on citation record, they keep on passing PROF indefinitely unless some sort of mistake in the editors' reasoning can be pointed to? One of the editors in the previous debate, and the only one to engage in detail with the PROF 1a claim, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Deliberately not linking to avoid canvassing. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

AfDs for this article:

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New York. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: [24] is definitely SigCov. This book also uses it as an example. (I also found 3 perhaps–slightly-questionable sources: funding, funding, research. I think the last source is unfortunately just a ton of trivial mentions. Depending on how one reads the "trivial coverage" part of NCorp, the funding ones may or may not be SigCov as they both have in-depth and independent coverage of what the company does.) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sizwe Nxasana

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

Unsourced BLP article, edited by possible COI editors and IPs LR.127 (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Education, and South Africa. LR.127 (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE search didn't find many useful sources, aside from his resignation at NSFAS. Article also reads like a resume. Procyon117 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relato K

AfDs for this article:

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

POV forking and WP:UNDUE; the article is based on the opinions of far-right politicians like Axel Kaiser. Also WP:OR?? JPerez90 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Argentina. JPerez90 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please define what do you mean when you say "far-right". Do you mean that he's right-wing, but more enthusiastic than others? How would that make him an unreliable source? Or do you mean that he's racist, white-supremacist, or something similar? That would be something else, right, but I would like to see a specific reference of that, not just a generic label that seems to be applied at random. Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

William Black (pianist)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The 3 sources provided are all dead. A search for sources only came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Texas. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: [25] [26] [27] [28]. Left guide (talk) 01:54, 8 November 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.