Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 25

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      October 28 (Mon)      October 27 (Sun)      October 26 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Harold Standish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article seems to be a hoax. I cannot find any of the cited books, and the cited Journal of Canadian Studies article or issue does not exist. A Google Search for "Harold Standish" finds only mirrors of his Wikipedia article. A Google Search for results before his article's creation finds nothing; only a PDF that mirrors our article on Canadian poetry, which he is name-checked in. Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Newspapers.com return no sources that support his existence. As well, Standish and his works are not recorded in any library catalogs, such as WorldCat, and no edits to his article after 2008 have changed the content in a substantial way. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of hoax concerns described above:

The Golden Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Authors, and Canada. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A deep dive into Newspapers.com yields no results whatsoever for a Canadian writer by this name, or for the purported novel, "The Golden Time". It does turn up a descendant of Miles Standish by this name, but not fitting any of the other biographical details here. The Internet Archive only returns a "Harold Standish Corbin" (not our fencer, Harold Corbin, by the way). This is likely a hoax, but even if it were a real person it would be one lacking any actual sources. BD2412 T 00:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references listed exist. If his works truly were significant, surely some online sources would exist. Procyon117 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per all of the above. Wikipedia is not a home for hoaxes on any subject. TH1980 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. Even if it’s not a made up in one day entry, we have no sources to verify any facts, and the creator of the article hasn’t been active in over a Decade. Bearian (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references in the article do not exist, and I cannot find even mentions of them in literature journals (WP:V/WP:GNG). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indi Script Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A company that simply exists and is not even close to meeting WP:NCORP which companies/organization articles are expected to meet in order to remain and WP:NMUSIC is completely irrelevant, because records companies/labels are a company, not a band or ensemble. There's also minor public relations activity at Special:Contributions/Indi_Script_Records Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Hawaii, Utah, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it was transcluded as 2nd nomination, I don't see any sign that it was kept by community consensus. It doesn't look like it's gone through an actual AfD, but it was PROD'd before and someone re-created it. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although I strongly disagree with the assertion that NMUSIC has nothing to do with record labels, this topic is non-notable by any of Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines. Nothing found in search for in-depth reliable independent sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge whatever else content on this page to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. Per below and WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

This is just an un-needed fork for a page we already have. Not only that, but this page has heavy content from other groups such as the BLA, or TTP, which are scopes completely irrelevant to this topic alone. This page is named "2024 Afghanistan-Pakistan Skirmishes", but also only covers the March 2024 border Skirmishes, when there has also been skirmishes last month in September, which is included in the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21, there has already been a concenus on this article that it should remain Waleed (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M Waleed Firstly, there was sockpuppets involved in the original AFD, go back to it to see blocked accounts. Secondly, I never brought up WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As mentioned, the incidents listed here are already mentioned in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes page. There haven't been any incidents this year that are themselves more notable than incidents any other year to warrant this being its own article independent of the main article on this topic. And, yeah, looking at the previous AfD discussion, there seems to have been at least a little bit of sockpuppetry going on? One of the main arguments that was made in favour of keeping the article was that it contains proper sources, which is true, but those sources would be no less proper in the main article. There's no reason for this article to exist, and there's no reason to merge because, as already pointed out, the information here is already in the main article. Archimedes157 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted! Austria Football 02 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted!" is directly against AFD policy, just because you think in your eyes it is a good article does not mean it is worthy of being kept. It is directly against Wikipedia Policy per Redundantfork. See WP:AADD, and more specifically; WP:ILIKEIT. Noorullah (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes: I think that non duplicate content should to merged back into the main article. REDUNDANTFORK does apply. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoife Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not seeing a clear and evidenced claim of notability in this new article about a writer. I think her books are self-published, which would be fine if there were significant coverage of them in independent, reliable published sources, but I cannot find that there is. Several of the existing references read promotional and I'm not clear that they are reliable and independent sources. This one, for instance, at a site called Altright Australia, or this at a site called Techno Tricks, or this which looks like it was originally a memorial site to someone called Houston Stevenson. The only claim in the article which might contribute to notability is the statement that one of her books won an award in the Independent Press Awards 2022 - I found the awards website to verify that, but am not clear that the award has received independent coverage or is notable. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found anything to add to notability, or where I can be sure it is the same person. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Ireland. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: When I first looked at the article, my AI senses tingled, and as I tried to clean it up, they tingled more. Although 12 sources were listed, there were only 6: one promotional article slightly changed across multiple platforms, one link to a site similar to MuckRack with no information about the author, an Amazon book link, an Apple Books link, and wait for it an article that mentioned a different Aoife Burke who plays footy (which was cited multiple times), as well as an obit for some Aoife Burke's father. An independent search for sources has turned up several Aoife Burkes, none of which are writers. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting all that out. Now wondering if this qualifies for speedy deletion under A7. Tacyarg (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability(people)Tesleemah (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Subject hasn't been the subject of significant/independent/reliable/verifiable sources - to the extent that WP:GNG or WP:NWRITER is met. As noted above, once all the unreliable/non-independent/unrelated sources are removed, the only thing that remains is a single blogpost (that was written 2 weeks before this article was created). Even if it were an independent/reliable source (and it doesn't appear to be), it doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV on its own. Nor can I find any other sources to establish notability or support the text. (The text itself describes just about any author/writer - and the stuff about schoolgirl and student awards is borders on the silly..). Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all sources found are spam and fake blackhat SEO blogs. The author is an obvious UDPE, now blocked for using socks. That "houstonstevenson" source is one of the most repugnant things I've ever seen here: spammers have taken over an open blog on a memorial site. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - she won a made up in one day award for an amateur poet. I tried searching for more information online, and found a cellist and the aforementioned soccer player. Bearian (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is mostly without sources, or sourced to the BBC, which doesn't approach WP:SIGCOV. Most of the article is plot recap which is already covered at the character articles. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Whilst it can be argued that the plot is overly detailed, I see no reason to delete this article as it is a significant and length story arc which was a prominent part of the soap during this period. Rillington (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rillington do you have reliable sources showing this impact and notability? These are needed in order to build a separate article upon and verify that this subject is meeting independent guidelines. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The length of this story arc - several months - satisfies notability although I accept that references are not as easy to come by, not least as, at the time, the listings for EastEnders in Radio Times were nothing other than a line from the show. Therefore, other plot references are most likely to come from synopses in newspaper listings. Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 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!} 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE search only showed WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. A redirect may be an WP:ATD if we can agree on a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirect/merge would result in the information contained about a major story arc effectively being totally deleted from Wikipedia, as merge/redirect is another word for delete. Whilst I said before, I accept that the article is overly detailed, I don't see how anything contained in this article can be retained anywhere else.Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The issue here isn't so much that the article is "overly detailed", its that it fails the WP:GNG. The sources included, not counting those that are official tie in books, are just trivial coverage. Many are nothing but a sentence mention, and at least one does not even mention the location or story arc. How long the story arc ran for does not contribute to passing the WP:GNG, only significant coverage in reliable sources does, and searches are not showing that this topic has that. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders was not notified about this, which it should have been. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear that, despite me wanting it to be retained, that, as it stands, this article is going to be deleted. However, can I please ask that this article is not deleted today, and instead relisted for another week so that Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders is given the chance to provide any input into this discussion and/or address the reasons why others are advocating for the deletion of this article. Rillington (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support giving some time to WP:EastEnders. They've done some good work before so I'm curious if they can turn up anything for Dickens Hill. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting upon request. Please realize though that a relisted AFD discussion can be closed at any time. If you want to participate, I'd do so promptly and not assume you have 7 days to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to several articles if necessary. Much of the development section could probably be merged with Den Watts, while the character sections should be merged with the relevent sections of List of EastEnders characters introduced in 1988, as well as some parts of the development section, the parts that are relevant to each character. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 21:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1936–37 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I moved this to draftspace, but it was moved back unsourced. Of course, a WP:BEFORE search would prove difficult, at best, for events that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malta. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy – Impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 09:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:BEFORE failure. Just because BEFORE is a lot of work is not an excuse to do it. Why not ask questions from User:MPN 1994 before nominating. And, good grief, you moved it to draft after only 140 minutes of it's creation? And then 104 minutes after it's recreation, while it's being edited, you nominate if for AFD? What's the rush? The final can be verified from here. And there's presumably information on the competition in Maltese newspaper archives like this. Surely having this checked is necessary before AFD, for such a prominent and ancient tournament. There's easy to find significant coverage for the previous season - it seems unlikely that this season is any different. Here's a relatively recent reference to Sliema's 3-year streak ending in this season. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz Actually, the standard "advice" is to wait only 60 minutes after creation; this is an observation that everyone is "done" by then. This is certainly true when someone is creating a bunch of articles at once like MPN 1994 was. The draftification was to prevent an AfD, but for better and for worse, WP:DRAFTIFY says I can't unilaterally move an article into draftspace more than once.

  The WP:BEFORE comment was a bit of an understatement. It's almost impossible to do a WP:BEFORE search for events so long ago. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like, User:I dream of horses, that the first one he created in this series of Maltese FA Trophy articles was in August 2018 and he's been working on other articles in this series since March 2013. Others have been creating articles in this series since 2008. It doesn't look like the pre-war articles were created at once - they were created over a 3-day period. I see you templated him to death - but I don't see a real attempt at communication - and perhaps not enough assumption of good faith, given they've been working on this series for over a decade, with no issues I'm aware of. No one has issues with this series of articles existing here for the last quarter century! We have a huge issue with WP:Recentism, and surely this is exactly the kind of article that we should be creating, and User:MPN 1994 should be commended and assisted rather than bludgeoned. Obviously he has some kind of source to put this together - so why not just ask him, rather than rushing to AFD these? Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz The kind of articles we should be creating are sourced. Just because one article is notable doesn't necessarily mean other similar articles are notable, nor does it mean they don't qualify for deletion. A chance was given to source the articles before I nominated for deletion; the main thing I'd do differently, perhaps, is figure out a way to do it all at once so there would be less of a "bludgeoning with template" impact. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But why not even attempt to discuss with him? It's pretty clear he had sources, and has been improving this series of articles for over a decade? Templating someone isn't discussion - and often not considered civil for long-standing editors - WP:DONTTEMPLATE. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz The fact that he had been doing it for years wasn't clear to me...and if he had been doing it for years, he'd know how to reply to the templates, etc. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The BEFORE failure here stuns me. You didn't research any of these as far as I know. You didn't look up the background of the series of articles. You didn't look at the editor. And then you justify all this? Quite frankly, if you don't have access to the Maltese archives necessary to verify this, and can't wait (violating WP:NORUSH) to discuss it with the author, I don't feel you shouldn't be editing in this topic area! Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The templates were an attempt to communicate. They weren't replied to. I know, I know, don't template the regulars, but that's something I disagree with.

  WP:NORUSH is not a policy/guideline, but an essay. Essays can't be violated. Besides, if it were a violatable policy/guideline, view one ("Don't rush to create articles") was being violated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1935–36 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I moved this to draftspace, but it was moved back unsourced. Of course, a WP:BEFORE search would prove difficult, at best, for events that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malta. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy – Impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This 2016 article proves this can be verified, and that the competition was "worthy of note" by 1936 standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportingFlyer. Malta was a crown colony in the 1930s and had a few newspapers then, Gazzetta Maltese (Italian) covered sports, Times of Malta founded in the 1930s covered sports, I don't know how complete this List of newspapers in Malta is, however, there are still ways to search the old newspapers then. So a true WP:BEFORE can never be done until someone has actually reviewed these old publications. Is wikipedia going to very strict and delete what is in essence would be classic archival of historical season results for this tournament? I ponder that as, this kind of article is what I believe the WP:Football project should be creating. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Govvy I tried the alternative of draftication due to similar concerns of my own (but with a more deletionistic bias), but the article sat in draftpace for a few days and then was moved back unchanged. The creator had "articlecountitis," attemping to make similar unsourced articles rapidly, but has since stopped. Of all those articles, I think this one is the only one which has any hope to be kept; hopefully, if that happens, either you or SportingFlyer adds the proper sourcing and summarizes it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 10:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are several of these at AfD at the same time, all created by one user. The main problem with them is the complete lack of sourcing, and we're not in a position to find one. They also contain some errors. If an original source had been provided, none of these would be at AfD! These are difficult sources to track down, they shouldn't be on us to find, so I don't really care if some are kept and some are redirected, but I do want to make the point that these should be eligible for articles. SportingFlyer T·C 17:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer I'm of the view that redirects are cheap, in part they are a good deal easier to revert than an outright deletion (basically, I'm a deletionist, but at my core, I'm a redirectionist/mergist). I'm okay with redirection or being kept but with sourcing as well. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - contemporary coverage of this historical event. Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The 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]

Vernon Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Imdb, social media and that's about all the coverage there is for this person. I don't see much notability for a character actor without sources. What's used in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Imdb the only source. Could not find any significant coverage in google news. Fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. I tried two different searches online, and found only IMDb and social media (FWIW, he has 1/4 of the number of followers that I have). I also found many other people with similar names. Bearian (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete per above --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral comment Above what? Please use actual words, not from a clipboard or an LLM, regarding what your rationale is. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No reliable sources in the article to establish WP:GNG or WP:SNG

Mission Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Spaceflight. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's pretty straightforward to find more sources by looking through newspapers.com during the 2002-2003 time period. Usually they follow the same format of explaining FIRST/Mission Mars and then pivoting to a local team/competition. E.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. I vaguely remember coverage from The Mercury News, but I don't have access to their back archives :/ Legoktm (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Union of Marxists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Almost all sources in the article are clearly not reliable. These are practically only the most insignificant references to the organization's participation in some protest actions. The only sources with detailed descriptions are Vashi Novosti and Nakanune.ru, which, however, in the case of Vashi Novosti are devoted to an interview with the head of the organization, and for Nakanune.ru they also consider in the interview format the independent activities of a part of this organization, and not the organization as a whole. In addition, both sources, in addition to the primacy of the sources, raise doubts about their reliability. The other sources are even less reliable. Dantiras (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of Communist Internationalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article are quite strange. It states that the organization was created in 2023, but almost all the sources are from 2021-2022. Also, none of the sources have significant coverage or seem to be relevant. The article was created by a blocked user. Sources relevant to the time of the organization's existence are posts on the social networks of this organization. Dantiras (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Created by a confirmed sock puppet account. Don't waste our time trying to find accuracy or verification. The article is about a Russian organization, sourced with Russian language references. — Maile (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish American Chamber of Commerce and Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found a few refs such as https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-american-business-association-names-new-president-117121 but not enough to show notability in my opinion Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 18 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!} 19:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II weapons of Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As Turkey hardly participated in WW2 I don’t think this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that OP has not actually made a policy based argument for deletion, that doesn't however mean that they are wrong. I have not been able to locate any independent significant coverage of the topic and there is none on the page, so unless I'm missing something it doesn't meet the requirements of a stand alone list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nom's statement does not contain policy-based rationale for deletion, but nevertheless the article might not maintain WP:GNG. I did find this [7], but I'm not too sure if it's reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep World_War_II_by_country#Turkey says "There is no record that Turkish troops ever saw combat." But they did technically join the war near the end. Category:World War II military equipment by country would be incomplete without listing every nation involved in World War 2. The articles list what military equipment they had, not what they used. Dream Focus 15:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, couldn't the category of Turkey in that link still exist without this particular article? I mean I've only found the one source, but it would be nice to incorporate more. Conyo14 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per above. Deletion is not needed. Orientls (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt that anyone interested in Turkish military history will improve this article as I guess such editors would be more likely to create List of World War I weapons of Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to for instance Turkish Armed Forces#World War II. No compelling reason that it should exist. Geschichte (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces, as it is all Land Forces equipment. Can all be listed as equipment for the period 1940-50. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Party (Turkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Yet another Turkish political party article with no cites at all. I have not found enough to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The party had a short life, but received a lot of media coverage, such as [8]. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:09, 18 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!} 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Radio Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

Macedonian mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I realize that the article was nominated for deletion before. However, significant and in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the so-called "Macedonian mafia" is lacking. The only academic source I've encountered that mentions the Macedonian mafia is Social Change, Gender and Violence: Post-communist and war affected societies. It is true that there are criminal groups in North Macedonia (as well as Macedonian criminals abroad) but I have not seen any sources classify them as part of a broader body, so the whole premise for the article is based on original research. Besides, everything that has been added has been contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing doesn't seem to be there to say that various criminals are connected in an organization called the Macedonian mafia, either by themselves or law enforcement. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madelyn Renée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--the sole cited source barely mentions Renée, in the context of her relationship with Luciano Pavarotti, but there is no mention of her at that article nor is it clear how WP:DUE that would be. Searching online, I was able to find other brief mentions of Renee as Pavarotti's girlfriend (e.g. [9]) and interviews with her (e.g. [10], [11]) but nothing that provides secondary coverage of her life, career, etc. As written, the article is essentially a promotional resume with zero basis in available sources, and apparently with outright COI editing based on an assessment of the page's history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Massachusetts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: to the Pavarotti article. I couldn't find anything substantive myself. Ravenswing 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment She also performs as Madelyn Monti and there is some early news as Madelyn Renee Levy. The most substantial coverage I have found is a 2008 piece from the New York Times [[12]] DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep based on the 2008 NY Times article and many other sources I can see online. However, there’s also lot of unflattering information about her out here and there on Google that might implicate BLP. If we were actually neutral in POV, she might want the whole thing removed. Be careful of what you ask for. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the NYT article and other sources, but will require a substantial rewrite to remove WP:PROMOTIONAL sounding material and ensure all material is sourced. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 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!} 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there are now multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV which were added after the AfD was initiated Nnev66 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter of Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. It is quite telling that the article states: "Not much information about Peter survives, but it is known for sure that he existed." The subject of this article, who died as a child, has also been confused within the article with his younger brother, also called Peter. On top of that, there is a notable person called Peter of Barcelona, but he was an unrelated prelate. Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Article seems to be just stating the fact that he existed, nothing beyond that. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A non-notable child that existed, but nothing approaching sigcov or notability. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentaro Nakata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Strong failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and only 2 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masataka Tamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 3 in Japan's second league (12 in the third) being his weak claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidetoyo Watanabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 10 games in Japan's second league being his weak claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Budak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this singer meets WP:NARTIST. No apparent label, charting songs, notable awards, etc. Three of the cited sources are her official webpage/media, the 4th is three paragraphs, two of them just quoting her. Doesn't seem like WP:SIGCOV. Here2rewrite (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article itself contains no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO; primary sources, no charting, no sigcov, and no awards cited. I have tried to find coverage, but a total of 3 passing mentions on ProQuest, nothing on charting, and nothing on even musicbrainz or Allmusic. I am unable to see how this artist meets WP:MUSICBIO. Happy to change !vote if sigcov is identified - perhaps in Romanian sources - please ping me. ResonantDis_tortion 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:GNG. Article was created in 2015 by a single purpose account (fan? agent? social media manager? boyfriend?), proposed for deletion, and the prod tag was immediately removed with a misleading edit summary. Fairly obvious spam based on my research. Bearian (talk)

Mee Massa (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another draft that was moved back into mainspace. It's not very well sourced, and a Google search turns up little to nothing (YouTube videos, etc.). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sri Lanka. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the interest of full disclosure and transparency, this nomination was made after a discussion with Afrowriter on my talk page. Here's a direct link to the discussion and here's a diff of the discussion that's happened as of the nomination. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sirasa TV: the cast includes at least two rather notable actors and add one of the existing sources for verification (https://mirrorarts.lk/news/9458-2024-08-22-05-02-08 ; https://www.silumina.lk/2024/09/28/rasanduna/25979/මට-හිතාගන්න-බැහැ-බිමල්-නැ/ for example) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I usually avoid participating in Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, as I prefer to concentrate on creating and enhancing articles about notable subjects but i we go for Delete: Per nom as it lacks WP:SIGCOV there seems to be no review about the Series Afro 📢Talk! 01:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Him Kerosene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I started out redirecting their two albums Start. Stop. and No Mend No Repair (a third bluelinked album already redirected to someone else's work -- now fixed with a disambiguated redlink) in the absence of evidence that they met WP:NALBUM, but on further review I can't find any evidence that they actually meet WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. It's possible that there may be offline/defunct qualitative coverage, but their sv-wiki articles provide no additional help with that either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Sweden. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there seems to be quite a few mentions in the National Library of Sweden scanned newspaper archive. I can't read the articles from home and some are clearly concert listings and similar, but if I for example include the search term Luleå, indicating some more significant level of coverage, I get 44 results. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Country (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can not find much to apply WP:SIGCOV (specifically, that the sources " addresses the topic directly and in detail") for this group of films. While MOS:FILMSERIES suggests "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films., I feel like it fails the other half that complies with WP:SIGCOV which suggests "an article would also benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole, or at least commentators who compare later films to their predecessors".

On my own research to try to expand the article to satisfy this, I found a surprising amount of information for the first film from academic and news sources (via the Wikipedia Library and Google Scholar), but little to nothing on even on the second two films on their own let alone the films as a series outside an interview with the writer of the first two films, who said they were unrelated films with the title Pure Country applied to them later after the scripts were completed. Currently, the article is a hodge- podge of sources just comparing financial gross, rotten tomatoes reception, with no third party source discussing such variables. For this reason, I think this article feels like a combination of WP:SYNTH (Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.) and lacks the content for significant coverage. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forgot to bring this up in the original suggestion, in previous similarly Xfd on film series articles, the suggestion to re-apply the article as a WP:SETINDEX could apply. While that has not gone through, I'm struggling to see how this would be different from a disambiguation page, that would easily be covered by opening paragraphs in any of the film articles as there is little discussion of these films as series, let alone confusion between the other two works. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX, indeed (:D). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I appreciate your dedication at least. :D Lets see if we can get others to build on this idea. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seriously, there is traffic to this article. It is both notable and has significant coverage. There are details regarding it and its installments for example at The Numbers, Wide Open Country, and Rolling Stone.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't consider traffic to articles through deletion policy. Wide Open Country appears to be the closest to commentary here as the series as a whole, that's one source discussing it as a series. Not sure if the Numbers one is really in depth, and I can't get access from that Rolling Stones article, but without pulling material from the source, it appears to be just about the first article. @DisneyMetalhead:, if you could provide your three best sources as suggested by User:RoySmith/Three best sources, I think the article may not be withing a state of repair. If you have access to the RS article, using it to expand the article with specifics from it would probably assist a lot as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COMMENT Reply - I will add those 3 resources. The Rolling Stone one is equally detailed as the Wide Open Country source. The Numbers is a reliable and detailed source for the film series (on the financial/monetary side of things). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DMh, it's not about if the sources are reliable or not which is not what I said or asked for , it's whether or not that have enough discussion of the topic on hand to create an article based on them. The Rolling Stone one and Wide open Country one seem to be somewhat more in-depth, the numbers one may not be. That is the issue with WP:SIGCOV, not whether or not they are reliable sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me restate this -- I am not confused what you had stated, so let me clarify: there are more than 3 reliable and significant enough sources on the article. Another from Wide Open Country details the film's growth into a "franchise" including a stage play, meanwhile the soundtrack is one of the greatest selling country albums of all time. That being said, The Numbers is definitely is in line with WP:SIGCOV (on the financial side of things). DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bairakanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have found no evidence that this place exists. It is possible that it exists but is not documented on the web, or that this article is a hoax. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I previously listed this for CSD back when it was first created seeing as it at the time just said the name of the article in bold. It's entirely possible that the article is the user's house, as they initially uploaded an image portraying the outside of a house looking out into a forest named "Home image-at morning.jpg" CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not seem to exist. Kazamzam (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a list of mayors of a tiny town. The mayors have some hyperlocal significance, but is is part of the walled garden by the same Carmelopaedia editor. Fails WP:NLIST. Some of the people may have inherent notability, but that is as individuals. The intersection with Carmel-by-the-Sea is not encyclopaedic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This list article is a kind of a “shell” housing a list of non-notable mayors of the small tourist town of Carmel, created as part of an effort to include all-things-Carmel on Wikipedia (sometimes called a “walled garden” or a cluster of dozens of promotional articles to booster the town; also known as “Carmelopedia”. The article may have been one of the UPE efforts of the creator. The article fails WP:NLIST criteria per WP guidelines; it is a non-notable subject (perhaps belonging on the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s website, however it’s apparently not even notable enough for that) and therefore falls into WP:SALAT territory. The references are hyper-local, mainly consisting of the small, weekly tabloid with a low circulation, The Carmel Pine Cone, which of course would report on run-of-the-mill local news like the mayor. Guidelines state that tabloid journalism is not considered significant coverage per WP:SBST. A few items are cited to Arcadia Pub which publishes the Images of America series of picture books marketed to the tourist trade (several discussions questioned the reliability of these books), or to "Valley Press of Santa Cruz" which seems similar to self-publishing. Only six of these mayors are Wiki-notable which is not enough to support this as a notable list. Netherzone (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Satisfies Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, including Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:CSC. Does not fall [[WP:NLIST since that clearly says:

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the arguments of Netherzone. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Individual mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea wouldn't be notable, it's a small town, but its elections have been covered as far away as Sacramento, and there's enough commentary and sources that there's no good merge target. Lists of things or people not notable enough for their own page is a common way of keeping encyclopaedic information, as well. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if anything as a valid WP:SPINOUT. The list would be too long for Carmel-by-the-Sea, California and makes sense as a separate page. As Djflem states, it does not fail WP:NLIST. --Enos733 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The information about the mayors in Carmel by the Sea is verifiable. I see the question here of whether there should be a stand-alone page or whether the list should be contained on the page about the city. To me, this question invokes WP:SIZE. As for the list itself, a complete list of mayors of a jurisdiction fits WP:CSC as it is a "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." - Enos733 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm simply not convinced Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a list of mayors of a town of 3000 people sourced to hyper-local sources. This is an example of "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." Not seeing evidence this is an example of "recognised informational, navigation, or development purposes" to exempt from WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NLIST. There don't seem to be any collective discussion of the town's mayors - just run-of-the-mill/hyperlocal coverage of individual elections. Of the six current bluelinks in the list, one is clearly not getting kept at AfD, four have rather shaky notability, and one is notable for very unrelated reasons. Given that, I can't see this being useful as a navigational aid. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for additional input and possibly a more clearer consensus as the consensus at the moment seems to be split between "Keep" and "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (weak): While some of the individual entries may be notable and a couple (though only a couple) of the cited sources are significant, non-ROTM reliable sources, I just don't see any sign that the mayoral office of this small tourist town is notable enough for a list of all its officeholders. If all of the mayors in the list were notable enough for their own articles I could see the point, but as another user pointed out, most of them are not. I don't think most of the trivia-like information provided here provides anything of value to merge, so I think a delete is the best option. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed with others above that this list is not warranted as a standalone or even in the town's article. There's basically zero navigational utility -- the number of people who actually are notable is low enough that they could all just be mentioned in the main article -- and I can't see any encyclopedic merit in including the names of so many non-notable private citizens from this tiny town. I'll also note that this list falls under LISTPEOPLE, which requires members to be notable (and as the mayoral office of Carmel is not itself notable, they don't fall under any of the exemptions). JoelleJay (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Carmel-by-the-Sea, California: as an ATD to preserve history of the page and merge what seems necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoarchitectonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Jargon term invented in 1999 that has never been adopted by the wider community. I would just delete it as very little links to it. (If you really, really want the name then do a redirect to nanotechnology, but I am not in favor of that.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Everything salvageable in this article is already covered in the Nanotechnology article; the term is a needlessly-technical synonym for "controlled nanoassembly" and, as nom said, has never caught on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A few-second search brings 30,000+ links to dissimilar Google Books and 3000+ uses in Web of Science, either in the article title or abstract. That is definitely not negligible. According to ref. 1 in the article, nanoarchitectonics is wider than nanotechnology and involves ".. non-nanotechnology fields such as supramolecular chemistry with self-assembly/self-organization [44–47], materials fabrications [48–50], and biotechnology [51–55]". Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I cannot verify your claim of 3000+ uses in WoS, I get 1,175 and many of those that have some cites come from K. Ariga. This compares to 55,639 for nanotechnology and 185,073 for nanoparticle. I will definitely dispute the claim in the lead of the article that producing graphere is part of nanoarchitectonics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you restrict your search? I search in all fields over Web of Science Core Collection. Ariga contributes to 308 entries out of 3,039, that is 10%. Nanoparticle is a different object class. Nanotechnology is definitely a more popular term than nanoarchitectonics, I am not arguing against that. Surely we can dispute how to class technological processes, such as graphene exfoliation, but I don't see how this would be relevant to a decision to keep/delete an article. Anyway, I think graphene exfoliation in the lede explains "nano-creation" and not necessarily nanoarchitectonics. Materialscientist (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not restrict my search, I am not sure why there is a difference. Let's wait for more opinions, at the moment it would be "no concensus". Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clicking a couple pages into those Google Books results, and they seem to stop using the term nanoarchitectonics. In general, GB includes a hefty proportion of near-matches, particularly when the search query itself is a rare term. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism/branding term for an area that is not meaningfully distinct or well-defined. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpomish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. It's a place with landmass with valid coordinate. Existence is not notability. One of those best, biggest, tallest, "-est... in xxx" trivia articles. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, Asia, and Uzbekistan. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to suggest both this page and Khazret Sultan be merged to Hisar Range. There aren't substantive reliable sources about either of them – the only coverage is the peakbagger database and the blog post by the climbers. Unless there was independent coverage of the climb or the peaks, I don't think standalone pages are needed. Maybe there's an Uzbek source indicating there's a local interest in this superlative? Reywas92^Talk 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reywas92 There's not even anything to merge. Something that simply exists, and can only be verified by name in the blogosphere of personal websites and blogs shouldn't exist on Wikipedia at all. Like the shed in your property, or a hill on your farm. It shouldn't be merged, because the bloggy source do not meet contents policy per WP:RS Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antik Mahmud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability found for this student. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. A well-known YouTuber. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Having over 1,000,000 subscribers and over 153,000,000 views on YouTube, seems pretty notable in my opinion. But following, WP:NPOV, there's more than enough credible sources aswell as editor/writer(s) of those WP:RS article makes it more essential than ever. Don't know the point/reason of create/have(ing) a deletion talk for this article. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve

He is notable, but the problem is there. I think the lack of proper writing, the need to add more information, and the carrier is empty. UzbukUdash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UzbukUdash, I kinda agree with you. He’s definitely notable, but yeah, I see the problem too. The writing feels rough in spots, and there’s definitely more information that could be added, I’m working on it in my sandbox and trying to develop it further. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Improve as per @Bruno pnm ars and @UzbukUdash Keemstar148 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC) — Keemstar148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment 1 million subscribers is not, and will never be, notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word. Geschichte (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide references supporting your keep !votes to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. subject meets WP:GNG,
  WP:RELY Sources: 1 The Business Standard, 2 The Telegraph India, 3; 4 The Daily Star (Bangladesh), 5 The Daily Ittefaq, 6 BBC NEWS, 7 Daily Sun (Bangladesh) Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bruno pnm ars: It's great to elaborate on your recommendation, but you've already said "strong keep" above and get only one !vote. So please strike those two words above or change this entry to a "comment". --Worldbruce (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only sources I can really find are this and this. Not enough for an article. Procyon117 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Available sources do not establish notability because those that contain significant coverage are uncritical interviews (The Business Standard 1 Jan 2022, The Daily Star, The Daily Ittefaq, and BBC) or reprintings of his social media posts (Daily Sun). What he says about himself is a primary, non-independent source.

These pieces are generally accompanied by an introductory bio. The news organizations aren't transparent about where those capsule bios come from. One has to evaluate how similar they are to the "about me" section of his website and YouTube channel, and whether any independent sources are credited (e.g. "According to his class 9 teacher ...", "His college roommate said ...", etc.). If the bio has been supplied by him and is republished without analysis, evaluation, or interpretation by the journalist, then it is non-independent.

In my evaluation the only independent, secondary source addressing him directly and in any depth is the one review in The Daily Star mentioned above by Bruno pnm ars and Procyon117.[13] It is insufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has been tagged as barely-referenced for 13 years. I just did a search, and while there are lots of mentions, it's not clear they're all referring to the same awards, and I only found one article that seemed to deal with them at any length. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The awards received consistent coverage up to the early 90s; see New York, Newsday, but they have received little since then, either retrospectively for past ceremonies or for the 2010 revival alleged in the article. One could argue that this isn't a reason to delete the article, as notability is not temporary and the award and its coverage did span multiple years, but IMO the complete lack of coverage after the award shuttered (or for matter, of its shuttering) shows a more pressing WP:LASTING concern Mach61 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be more sympathetic to keeping this if the article wasn't obviously created by someone with an undeclared COI in a bid to promote the revival Mach61 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moribund Oblivion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for years as possibly not notable. Turkish article also has no cites Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing suggests notability, just the usual self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added some cites, including an RS stating it's the only Turkish band in the black metal genre to garner international attention. Thus the subject may well meet WP:MUSICBIO. There appear to be several reviews online - particularly in German, in specialist ezines. I will look for more sources when I get time. ResonantDis_tortion 15:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Furthermore, this band also has a profile page in Rock Hard, which is an WP:RSMUSIC, featuring multiple album reviews and articles (even if paywalled). See this link. I've added citations to the article. Other album reviews include [14] and [15]. With these - and the book citation - there's enough coverage to presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 18:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above and those added to the article since nomination. There is now evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added some to the page.

  By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plenty of Turkish sources found but as Mushy Yank says above it’s quite a task to plough through Turkish books online to update the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Being the director general of NITDA isn't enough to demonstrate notability. I've removed some fluff, but I've checked a few more misleading cites, and just concluded this is probably some paid article full of soft mentions, and doesn't pass the strict test for a WP:BLP article. Instead it is a resume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Per nom, you are right. I have gone through all the source and they never talked about him. They were only mentioning what he announced.--Gabriel (……?) 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge At a critical look at the article, Subject can not stand alone from NITDA. Aside NITDA, what else was their impact and is their any source to confirm the notability?Tesleemah (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From your reason given then that calls for a delete and not a merge. Even Olusegun Obasanjo who commissioned the NITDA, biography was not mentioned there neither anyone who has been appointed as the chairman. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi can be mentioned in the NITDA article but not this full statement which contains his biography. Gabriel (……?) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Being the "Director General" of the National Information Technology Development Agency of the Nigerian government is enough to meet notability per WP:NPOL. Apart from being a position appointed by the President, he has taken the office twice by different Nigerian presidents. Since NPOL justifies appearance in multiple reliable sources, I can see some coverage in newspapers including bagging a honorary award. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that NPOL specifically says he should not be as it isn't a top level position. Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find sigcov in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 11 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!} 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:NPOL, not only is the subject the current Director-General of the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), this is a role he has assumed twice under two Presidents. I can also see significant press coverage. B.Korlah (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to claim "significant press coverage" in a deletion discussion, you need to actually provide the links so that other editors (and closer) can determine if the claim is valid, or hyperbole. As for being appointed under two presidents, that has zero to do with notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as there is disagreement on whether the subject meets WP:NPOL. It would greatly help the case of editors arguing to Keep if they could bring in sources that would help establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to come into an agreement regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: appears to be the head of a government corporation, doesn't seem to pass political notability. Is a business person in the employ of the government, not a politician that's elected. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 in Turkish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

tagged uncited for many years and does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I deproDed the page. I have seen other years taken to AfD. But why? This is a pretty standard way to approach history of television by country. Mexico has them, Korea has them, and so on. Turkey is a major country with a long history of television. What's the issue? Non-notable, how? I would !vote Keep but that would imply restoring all the other years. But I don't understand. It's very easy to source every event with books and/or news. And for general coverage, just open Yanardağoğlu, Eylem,  Television in Turkey: Local Production, Transnational Expansion and Political Aspirations, Springer International Publishing, 2020; "The Transformation of the Media System in Turkey: Citizenship, Communication, and Convergence", Springer International Publishing, 2021; The Regulation of Turkish Network Industries. (2022), Springer International Publishing. A source for each and every programme broadcast is easily found. I am seriously confused.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to keep it vote keep. I don’t think that would implying restoring other years as some years in television are more notable than others. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK: Keep and restore all years. This year in Turkish television is notable and so are apparently all years I checked, given the existence of sources for individual events and about trends/years in the Turkish history of television. Also for navigation reasons.and procedural reasons; targeting one year after another to delete the whole range of articles (that precisely make sense as a whole) brick by brick is not a good idea when the general topic is notable.

  some years in television are more notable than others. Maybe (I don't think so) but then, it seems you want to have ALL years of Turkish television deleted and I am very much against that idea. Is it your idea?

  Another solution would be to change the approach by creating lists by decades and redirecting/merging the individual years (in)to the decades (2000s in Turkish television and so on) but I won't do it myself (as I favour individual years)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No I have not proposed deleting all years and that is not my idea. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Very well, I had the wrong impression, my apologies. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: there are only 4 years left in the category. The ones that have been deleted lately were, if I am not mistaken, in the 2000s and 2010s The other years haven't been created yet.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is about the 2004 article. To restore articles previously deleted at AfD, please see WP:DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, consider my !vote a simple/single Keep then (but restoring other years should also be done); this is part of a set and is justified in terms of navigation, that's what I mean. Notwithstanding the individual notability of this page, deleting random years one by one without considering this type of page in general or the whole is not a good approach. Also may I remind the nominator that WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overspecific page name/scope; notable events can be added to 2004 in Turkey. Geschichte (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I am sorry but, again, I am very confused, how is this overspecific? This is pretty standard: have a look at Category:2004 in television by country please. Again, if you think Turkey has a less substantial history of television than, say, Brazil or Japan (I don't think so), considering a different organisation and redirect years to (not-yet-existing) pages about decades might make sense, but just deleting that year for that country (although it can be easily sourced) seems extremely confusing to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, the dire state of the article (and yes, I'm going by the current state of the article, and I'll explain why shortly) shows that it was a bad idea to start a page about 2004 in Turkish television. The "years in country" absolutely need to start with the basic year in the country, in this case 2004 in Turkey, and then branch out when size dictates so. Moreover, it would make sense to branch out to "2004 in Turkish media" before further sub-division into television, radio, cinema, press etc. As for other similar pages existing, I checked a dozen of the entries in the nabvbox, and most of them are embarrassingly bad. Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has changed a lot since it was nominated for deletion. Nxcrypto Message 03:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Malák (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced dump. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you look at his record on the International Ski Federation (FIS) website which is linked in his article, Malak competed in the 2010 Winter Olympics only, not the 2018 Winter Olympics. The FIS database is among the best kept athlete recording from the 1924 Winter Olympics onward. Chris (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Database sources don't comply the whole notability guideline (GNG). Following WP:NSPORTS2022, participation in tournaments is no longer considered saved from deletion. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through sport.sk archives all I could find were a blurb on the Olympics, brief results/participation announcements, and the subject talking about himself. Nothing but stats from ifortuna.sk, nike.sk; zero hits from tipsport.sk; and stats hits for a different Michal Malák on hokejportal.net. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 11 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!} 17:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest fathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

Pregnancy over age 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS, and persistent WP:BLP violation, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Absolutiva (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also WP:NLIST. Procyon117 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Separate !votes for the two articles:
  • About Pregnancy over age 50: Merge what can be saved in Advanced maternal age, then delete. The issue of advanced age pregnancy is notable and cases of late pregnancy, if medically or otherwise notable, can be briefly discussed, but 50 is an arbitrary threshold and the list is cruft. --cyclopia^speak! 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • About List of oldest fathers: Weak keep, after much cleanup, but I'd prefer a corresponding Advanced paternal age article instead (currently it is a redirect to Paternal age effect).--cyclopia^speak! 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket FM (platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 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) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Commenthas a potential as over 100 mln downloads, and so on. WP NEXIST should be applied here before the final verdict. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Non-trivial coverage in Variety, Rest of World, and TechCrunch (meets RSP as being staff-written). Along with the sources in the article I think there's enough for WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The rest of world article counts, but the other two are routine coverage of raised capital, no? (WP:CORPTRIV) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I was not aware of the detail in WP:CORPTRIV. If nothing else can be found it should probably be deleted, then. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Tamás (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per IP: "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree with nom, the article sourcing is almost entirely primary. It's possible that her anthology Spells might qualify for an article, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added references and think there is enough coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep thanks to good work by @Tacyarg. Kazamzam (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nom here, not sure if I can vote for my own nom. Just went through and deleted broken links that don't exist (FT for one was a dud) plus references to her own two paragraph reviews of someone else's poems in unknown arts mags. Although she's rising, I would not say she is risen. Many if not 1000s of people have poems in anthologies, poetry books and have won small awards (or 'jointly won' in her case). We have a poetry slam in my city every weekend you want every winner on here? This is specialist not generalist and there's a definite element of sock-puppetry going on. The prizes are not notable enough at this point. Will get an ID here one day I swear 80.194.211.108 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've reverted the IP's two recent edits, which removed valid content. I found an archived copy of one ref, the FT link exists though it is behind a paywall, so I can't see whether the reference is "a dud" but I don't know that the IP can see it either. Other refs they removed included links to her entry at London Review of Books which links to four of her poems published there: a valid source for the statement that she has been published in LRB, and so on. She appears to be notable. PamD 10:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FT link is to a page showing that she has been published in the FT, ie supporting the statement in the article. I can't click through to read her actual article in the FT, but the ref certainly isn't "a dud". PamD 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the Manchester Poetry Prize (that article needs some work) is not just a "university award" but "the UK’s biggest prize for unpublished poetry". PamD 11:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a paid subscriber to FT, and it comes up with an 'oops' page. I'm actually more inclined towards Keep now, thanks to recent edits, but lots of references does not equate to quality references 80.194.211.108 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't !vote twice. Either strike one or say you are unsure. JMWt (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria, in particular due to multiple reviews for WITCH in WP:RS in addition to reviews and awards for earlier work Nnev66 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of her works in reliable sources such as The Guardiian and The Times, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to me to pass the GNG by a significant margin due to coverage in independent third party RS. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Ooty Glass Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources (or evidence of WP:GNG) given at all, already exists as a draft so no reason for a duplicate draftification. A WP:BEFORE only brings up the likely non-independent keralatourism.org, although I do not speak Malayalam and am thus not able to look too in-depth into sourcing.

Expertise from Malayalam-speaking editors (or speakers of other languages of India, if the bridge has been discussed in Indian media beyond Kerala) would be more than welcome to help assess notability more properly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Kerala. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Arimbra Hills, Malappuram. Page as it stands doesn't seem to meet requirement of WP:NBUILD which requires in-depth coverage in RS. That said, perhaps it will change in the future. Target is not obvious so redirect seems appropriate. JMWt (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Harlacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, WP:NACTOR Polygnotus (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Totally un-sourced. — Maile (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources and no inherent or visible GNG. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I agree basically with the nomination. Few to no evidence of being either a notable actor or director. However, searches for his work on SF reveal some attention to his other careers. He has some good following on social media and blogs, but not much else. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2024–25 Nepal Premier League auctions and personnel signings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK, as the coverage of this auction was reasonably low. This isn't the IPL where the auction is a massive deal, almost all other T20 franchise league tournaments don't need separate auction articles, and this is certainly the case here. Especially as almost all of the domestic players aren't notable, so this list doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the auction is low but it is very high compared to any asscoiate nation cricket league. and IPL is not cretaed in a day ot it has been pouplar in first season. So, better not delete the article as it can be usefull in future to know history. and this atricle doesn't only include about domestic players acuxtion but also foregin signing of player. Csknp (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Very high compared to any associate nation cricket league" doesn't mean it passes WP:GNG and doesn't solve the issue of it being an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Not a huge fan of these types of lists, and this one certainly falls short of our inclusion guidelines. AA (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Motor Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP: there is no direct and in-depth article about the company. The coverage is mostly Adam Revo so a redirect per WP:ATD is possible. Gheus (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I managed to find this [16], but it is WP ROUTINE, occasional not sigcov. Nothing more while doing WP BEFORE. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTN Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG: I found a few mentions ([17], [18]) and a routine news article. Gheus (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As a list at least; WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a list. And where are the sources for the items that would be included in a list? Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as a list, make it a list then (and, anyway, it is pretty much a list, yes, sorry) Not sure I understand your question. Remove unsourced items if you like, blue items do not urgently need sourcing but feel free. That is a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Or redirect to List of television channels in Pakistan until the missing sources are added if you prefer. Either way, I am opposed to have this deleted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.paktvdramas.pk/LTNFAMILY for verification of a few of the series (not for notability of the channel, I must insist) ; note: the channel was formerly known as Filmazia if I am not mistaken: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/won-t-allow-indian-content-to-be-aired-it-damages-our-culture-pakistan-supreme-court/story-TgIFYTHUwQaczFyYCxW5vL.html https://tribune.com.pk/story/1460942/court-quashes-pemras-ban-airing-indian-dramas; Newsline. (2007). Pakistan, Newsline Publications, vol 19, p. 99 indicated that it was then the country's "first movie channel , which features old and new Pakistani films, film-based shows and entertainment news". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Labeling an article as a list merely to bypass the GNG is considered WP:GAMING. The topic does not meet the GNG , so it should be deleted. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing notable. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First League of Zagreb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure what is going on here, but no refs on the page for many, many years. I'm not seeing a way to find appropriate sources, perhaps the league only survived for a very short time idk. JMWt (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Croatia. JMWt (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete because it lacks evidence of notability or existence. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liman National Type (Chinese) School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing found which would count towards notability standards as schools do not have assumed notability JMWt (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Malaysia. JMWt (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced for almost 9 years. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 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]

Labbaik TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I failed to verify if the channel is still active and there is no coverage about it. Gheus (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I can’t find any sources to support it, so extremely unlikely to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Islam, and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of television channels in Pakistan: and add ref to Pakistan's Political Labyrinths: Military, Society and Terror(2015). (Taylor & Francis), or https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistan-labaik-tv-channels-broadcast-stopped20220907013539 for example. Or Keep, if other users think the existing coverage is sufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed as per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Park, New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Once you take out the OR and the unreliable source (a real estate website) there is nothing to this article beyond demographics and list of schools, all sourced to databases. There is no SIGCOV in reliable sources to support an article. Not legally recognised either so NPLACE doesn't apply. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has been well-sourced since this nomination was made.-Gadfium (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references don't provide SIGCOV.

• [19] is about an event not the suburb, trivial + primary source.
• [20] trivial mention and a primary source
• [21] doesn't discuss the subject
• [22] [23] [24] not coverage about the subject, it being used to call the roads 'major' ones is OR.
• [25] this isn't an RS, see the relevant RSN thread: [26]
• [27] map that doesn't mention subject, being used for OR
• Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment: 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association 2015 trivial one word mention, not sigcov
• [28] trivial mention
• [29] trivial mention
• [30] trivial mention
• [31] trivial mention
• [32] doesn't mention subject.

Rest of the references are demographic databases or about schools/parks and not the subject itself. There does not appear to be any SIGCOV and some of the current references consist of OR/Synthesis. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NPLACE: New Zealand government agencies including the New Zealand Police ([33]) and the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi ([34]) make reference to Shamrock Park. Paora (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No 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]

Şifa University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [35]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:

  • University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)
  • etc.

  What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Al-Saif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t think being the father in law of the Crown Prince of Jordan makes a subject notable. Understandably he got some official recognition and publicity around his recent death, but there isn’t enough here for a stand alone bio. Anything we need to know about him is already included in the article about his daughter. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 18 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!} 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes per WP:DIVERSE which states Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I'm attaching some sources which gives significant national and international coverage for the event. [36], [37] (coverage from an Indian reliable source), [38] and many more. The nominator has not any proper WP:Before. A simple Google search as World Defence show is turning up many reliable sources giving significant overage. 111.92.113.32 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Analyzing the attached sources - [1] - EDR Magazine is not an RS, [2]- Firstpost is not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424#Unreliable sources? FirstPost /TimeNow, [3] - Alarabiya is also not a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 98#Alarabiya, reliable or not?. As a nominator, I have done required WP:BEFORE and also conducted the simple google search and the google news search as suggested by the IP. However, these efforts did not yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A similar group of IPs, starting with the range 111.92.xx.xx, has been involved in editing another page about a military equipment manufacturing company from the Middle East. It wouldn't be surprising if they were all connected. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hinapia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: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]

Battle of Vrdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was sourced to a combination of blogs, local news portals with no editorial oversight, and used inflammatory descriptions of the enemy while referring to HVO troops as "heroes". None of them are reliable, so I have deleted them. Without reliable sources, there is no way this article, supposedly about some fighting to defend/capture a village, meets the notability criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Griboski (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with nomination points about the article’s issues. OyMosby (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now ensured that the article accurately reflects the detail that is available in Balkan Battlegrounds. It is clear that there isn't significant coverage of this small part of Operation Neretva 93 in that source, and there doesn't appear to be any other reliable sources that coverage it in significant detail either. It therefore doesn't meet WP:N. There is already an article about Operation Neretva '93, and the scant information about this fighting should be included in that article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that the scant detail remaining is already in the Operation Neretva '93 article. This article is entirely redundant and the event, on its own - clearly non-notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civilizations in Babylon 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

AFD to receive wider input if this needs a stand-alone article. In 2020, this civilization article got smerged into List_of_Babylon_5_characters (as part of a larger B5 cleanup move) for WP:INUNIVERSE and general WP:FANCRUFT problems to avoid AFD (the irony!), see original merge proposal. The article got reestablished today, I would nowadays label it as an undue WP:Content fork without established notability. Should it exist and develop from here (assuming sources even exist), or officially redirect back to List_of_Babylon_5_characters until it qualifies for WP:SPINOUT? – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and merge back to the character list. There's sourcing there to support a few sentences about each of the major species but this can be condensed to a short section with the character list article. Most of the content is far more appropriate at a fan wiki. Masem (t) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already was trimmed & merged. Did I miss something by accident back in 2020? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In itscurrent state, the article still heavily relies on in universe info that is unsourced or sourced to the primary work. I am certain that we can better summarize the major sle ies from the show with se ondary sources without excessive in universe detail, hence the trim and merge to keep appropriate content. If there is an article recreation problem, salting can be done on the redirect. Masem (t) 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reading back on the talkpages, it seems that the main reason for reestablishing this civ list lies with Shadow_(Babylon_5), which (understandably) isn't listed in the LoC and thus had no real target. However, 2019's Shadow_(Babylon_5) article doesn't look like it would survive AFD, so I feel that's either a non-issue or issue for WP:RFD. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Sgeureka: So what is the central argument for deletion here? Is it notability? If so, was a WP:BEFORE search done? What were the results?

Or is the main argument a WP:PAGEDECIDE one for a likely notable topic?

The original merge is quite justified in my view, as there were no objections to the proposal then. But I do understand that the lack of treatment of the Shadows is one concern, because I know there are secondary sources talking about them, even though they are neither worked into this article nor the old stand-alone one. I don't have an opinion yet on the merge, but I am against deletion, as I don't see a reason not to at least have the redirect as WP:AtD. I think the old merge discussion should have been continued instead of starting a deletion discussion. Pinging @Anonymous44: as involved editor.

With regard to notability, one first secondary source which has significant treatment on our topic here would be the Babylon 5 chapter of The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader, which discusses the four main "younger races", Shadows and Vorlons. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I am not arguing for deletion, but I want to ideally make the redirect (a common AFD result per WP:COMMON#Fiction) "stick" officially without tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans. Or get my wrist slapped here in the process. If proper merge discussions can be undone willy-nilly without addressing the original article issues (tagged for 12 years before the merger!), the lesson here will be to do AFD from the outset in the future instead of the softer merge proposal route, which I used to be a fan of. Notability is not the main reason why we are at AFD, but the article sure should be build around establishing it (it currently isn't). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: Thanks for clarifying! I understand that starting an AfD has a higher chance of getting more opinions and a closure on the question of a stand-alone article as compared to a merge discussion on the talk page. But I also think that there are good reasons the deletion policy explicitely says not to use this process if one wants or suspects merging as an outcome. E.g. as you have put forward this being a WP:Contentfork as a reason for the nomination, deletion policy says "Reasons for deletion include ... 5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)" (emphasis mine). Maybe to reduce frustration on the process in general I would like to point out that this is a bit of special case: Yes, you had started a merge discussion. Noone objected, so you were completely justified in going forward with the merge. But there were also no further opinions given, so one cannot speak of a consensus formed, which was "undone willy-nilly". Rather, we now have a second, opposing opinion, so at this point there is clearly a no consensus situation, and the provisional restoration of the list in my view is justified as well, based on the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (even though there was a time gap before refert here). I think "tedious back-and-forth discussions with fans", or rather, other Wikipedia editors, are the normal and reasonable, if inconvenient process at this point to reach an informed decision on the best course of action. It would be quite a different case if a solid consensus would have formed. Then there need to be good reasons and significant input to overthrow previous decisions, and there should be no "willy-nilly" "back-and-forth" about it. But this discussion needs to take place first. Now if the merge discussion would remain with only two opinions, which may happen at a talk page discussion even if is somewhat frustrating, I think there were to options: 50/50 opinion looks like no consensus, then things are left as they are for the time being. Or if you think you have the way better arguments, get a neutral third party to decide at Wikipedia:Closure requests, just as we have a neutral party closing a deletion discussion. We don't need the AfD process to achieve that. Daranios (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So here's the thing... I have plenty of dead-tree resources on Babylon 5, but no time to do anything much except for stave off AfDs:
  • Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997a). Creating Babylon 5: Behind the scenes of Warner Bros. revolutionary deep space TV drama (1st American ed). Ballantine Books.
  • Bassom, D., & Straczynski, J. M. (1997b). The A-Z of Babylon 5: [The complete reference guide to the groundbreaking sci-fi series] created by J. Michael Straczynski. Dell Publishing.
  • Guffey, E. F., & Koontz, K. D. (2017). A dream given form: The unofficial guide to the universe of Babylon 5. ECW Press.
  • Johnson-Smith, J. (2005). American science fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and beyond. Wesleyan University Press.
  • Lancaster, K. (2001). Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan performance in a media universe (1st ed). University of Texas Press.
  • Lane, A. (1997). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorized guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series, Babylon 5. Virgin.
  • Lane, A. (1999). The Babylon file: The definitive unauthorised guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV series Babylon 5. Vol. 2. Virgin.

There is absolutely enough in these books to support notability for an article on each episode of the series, as well as most things like the shadows as a civilization. How we deal with this is really dependent on how we, collectively, view WP:TIND, as I'd be lying if I said I thought I'd have time to work on this in the foreseeable future. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Later we decide if a separate article is necessary. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, echoing 21.Andromedae. With the secondary sources presented, the topic looks notable, and there would be enough material to solve the problems it has through normal editing, so deletion is not the way to go. I have no strong opinion if this is better kept as a stand-alone article or condensed as part of List of Babylon 5 characters for the time being. On the one hand it has been tagged for the problems for a long time, on the other I do think it would be better presented as a separate article in the long run. If it were to be covered in the characters list, some more should be added there. I can take a look at the Shadows in case this is kept. So like Jclemens, it depends on where we stand with regard to WP:TIND. I come out just on the keep side as an AfD outcome, not precluding further discussion on a merge on the talk page. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see how this could become notable even with sources existing. Perhaps a Universe of Babylon 5 article could be made, but that would require a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Notability in the Wikipedia sense is intrinsically based on treatment in secondary sources. So I don't quite get how this could become notable even with sources existing. Did you mean something else or would you like to explain in more detail? Daranios (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not satisfied. This appears to be a textbook indiscriminate list unless you can demonstrate sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole, and separate from other discussion on the universe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: sources discuss the civilizations of that universe as a whole I believe the listed secondary sources do just that. separate from other discussion on the universe I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that there needs to be material directly commenting on civilizations/species of Babylon 5, then I agree and again believe that the provided sources do that. If you mean that there need to be sources which only discuss the civilizations without (separate from?) referring to the fictional universe, that makes little sense to me. They are part of the universe. Both topics are connected. If there should be one article on the civilizations and the universe or two depends on the amount of material in secondary sources. I believe there is enough for two. If they are better presented together, at least until things get too large to read, or separate I have no strong opinion on. It is an editorial question, which is no reason for deletion. Fact is, we have a civilizations article but not a universe one. So if someone thinks things are better presented another way, they can do so, but first deleting everything is not the way to go according to policy. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as establishing notability goes, I'm not really sure that most of those sources listed above should qualify, as they appear to have been written specifically to talk about Babylon 5, versus discussing the series and elements of it within a broader context; two of them were even written in part by the creator of the series. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: I agree that the two publications by Bassom and Straczynski are non-independent and therefore probably don't contribute to notability. But as soon as they become "unofficial" guides, they should be independent. I've never heard that they appear to have been written specifically to talk about Babylon 5 would lead to them not "counting" towards notability. What would be the basis for that? Our most basic critereon of notability being "did people consider it relevant enought to publish about". Of course overall aside from notability an article needs to fullfill WP:NOTPLOT. American science fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and beyond and The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader do come from a broader context right away. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly thinking of the arguments discussed at WP:IPCV. We wouldn't expect a book specifically written about Babylon 5 not to discuss the civilizations that exist within the series, so does it really demonstrate any notability when such a book does so? Perhaps it depends on what the book has to say about the civilizations and whether there's meaningful discussion or just in-universe cruft, but I think it's a lot more compelling to use sources that weren't written with the express goal of discussing all matters B5-related. I agree with you that I don't readily see any issues with American science fiction TV, which isn't so directly B5-focused. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I'd think the opposite is true: If someone is willing to publish a whole book on a subject, that's surely significant coverage, as suggested in the example of WP:SIGCOV. But with regard to WP:IPCV we are in agreement that sufficient commentary rather than pure plot summary is necessary for a stand-alone article. As I said, I don't have doubts that enough can be found both within and without the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or merge: I think it's possible that there may be something of value here, though I question whether truly independent sources (see my reply to Daranios above) have discussed the civilizations of B5 in any substantive detail. However, the listing in its current state would be more appropriate for a wikia or such, and I'm not sure how much of the current material would survive any real effort to provide sources that demonstrated real-world significance. I've also been on Wikipedia long enough to suspect that if the list is kept then we'll simply be revisiting this discussion in another few years when it hasn't been significantly improved. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It appears to be notable (per User:21.Andromedae), but it should be converted into a proper list. SirBrahms (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andromedae and SirBrahms Andre🚐 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has multiple reviews in reliable sources already present in the article as determined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:Bastun has nominated nine Remedy Drive albums for deletion, all with the same non-descriptive rationale copy/pasted into each: "Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV." (The first nomination has slightly different syntax.) There is no evidence that a WP:BEFORE search, specific to each album, was done before this mass copy/paste operation. Some of the album articles have citations to reliable sources in the Christian music media, though others could be redirected to the band's article. That's already more variable evidence then given in these mass nominations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - not sure what you mean by "non-descriptive"? It's accurate. The albums have all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems good enough. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This AFD is depressing. Vague nominations combatted by vague stances. Come on, do better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  C'mon, Babysharkboss2, you've participated in AFDs before. A Keep based on your first impressions of an article will be ignored by a closer. You need to be specific about sources (WHICH sources, too) and whether they establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There's a bit more on this one too. As I said on the nomination for Imago Amor, the reviews that are present are the usual weak/blog-esque Christian music sources, but it's an indication there is more coverage out there. Ss112 08:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Tight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most definitely fails WP:GNG TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge text from Back to the Real. Caro7200 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly makes it notable though? Looking at the sources for the other page, half of the sources appear to be dead, one is just a wikipedia self citation, and one simply just confirms that the album exists. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:31, 15 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!} 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reel Weak Keep, and use sources from the article for their lone album Back to the Real, which strangely is more developed than the band's article. Though I don't have access to the true chart pages at Billboard, their album made a small dent in the R&B charts and they had two mid-level hit singles. They got some minor coverage back in the day for being discovered by Warren G, as seen in a source used at the album article. This is reel close though, and I won't argue with anyone who votes differently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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)[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]

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]

Marisa Chearavanont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was recently published from draftspace with the reason: She is notable, in my opinion. Searching her name in Thai, มาริษา เจียรวนนท์, provides plenty of coverage, which is significant enough to establish notability. Since I cannot re-draftify it per WP:DRAFTNO #6, I am bringing it to AfD. I believe that the article should be re-draftify-ed per WP:DRAFTREASON because "The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest, but it did not go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process". The tone is very promotional, notability appears to be marginal, and this is a BLP with several uncited paragraphs. The status quo should be restored so that this article can be cleaned up and notability established. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Thailand. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I will vote later; note to admin: It seems this is a return of resentment from our previous conflict rather than a professional approach. ManoiCMU (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment recent editing seems to have removed some inline external links which might have, if properly formatted, served as references to support the article. eg this confirms that she won a 2022 Rinascimento Award, although not the statement that she was its first recipient as the source refers to the award being in its 3rd year. This may explain some of the unsourced paragraphs mentioned in the nomination. PamD 08:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Subject is notable, but the article is still too blatantly promotional in tone (despite efforts at copyediting) to be suitable for Wikipedia. While AfD is not for clean up, the should not be allowed in its current state. Either trim it down to a bare stub from which it can be re-expanded, or draftify/delete without prejudice to a proper, neutrally written article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Kunan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested BLAR. Fails WP:BIO1E per the consensus at the previous AfD. Very little has changed between the pre-AfD version and the current version of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and Thailand. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I've updated the article. The last AfD discussion was six years ago in 2018. At that time, his notability was unclear, but now he is being called a "national hero." His big statue has been erected in his town, and a memorial hall has been established—clear signs of his notability [39]. He was awarded the Knight Grand Cross (First Class) of the Order of the White Elephant by the King, which is not the third class that is typically given to minister-level individuals. The first class is rarely awarded and is reserved for individuals at the state level. So, he clearly passes WP:ANYBIO (and if disagree, WP:ANYBIO should be abolished.) The Order of the White Elephant is not a joke and the dream of many Thais; it's a prestigious honor similar to India's Padma Vibhushan. Some locals have venerated him as a deity or spirit. Moreover, he is the subject of a film, and in 2021, a TV drama titled Thirteen Lives was made (see coverage), in which he was portrayed by renowned actor Sukollawat Kanarot, and many significant, reliable sources have independently featured him. He easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, even if WP:ANYBIO isn’t considered. Here is the update article. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Passing ANYBIO does not automatically establish that a person is independently notable. It also doesn't override other notability guidelines, such as BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the update article. The New York Post is generally unreliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, if you are not happy with this, here is the original article [40] from Reuters, and extra from The Nation (Thailand). The NY Post is a mirror of the Reuters article. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, having a character in a TV drama about the notable event that this person is involved in does not establish notability of the person. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't cry....pls learn from many AfD outcomes. Other editors will decide his notability. Don't be serious. 55555. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Portraying him as a figure in TV series is a sign of notability and a popular culture. ManoiCMU (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ManoiCMU, this is not how notability is established on Wikipedia. And deletion discussions are a serious business. We're deciding what is and isn't appropriate content for this encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...agree. I just a vote. Let others decide. ManoiCMU (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Morevoer... In July 2019, the Airports of Thailand (AOT) established a large building named the Lt. Cdr. Saman Kunan Building in his honor. A 1.9-meter-wide by 2-meter-long bas-relief sculpture, standing 2 centimeters high, was installed in the building as a tribute [41], [42]. A merit-making ceremony was held four years after his passing. The source described it as being "to commemorate his sacrifice, bravery, and dedication, as well as his example of doing good with a volunteer heart." The event was organized by Air Vice Marshal Chananan Rodkul, Director of the Security Division, with all staff from the Royal Thai Army Security Division also joining in tribute, see. In 2023, he was honored as "the national hero turned legend" (source: "Looking Back 5 Years: 'Tham Luang Cave Rescue Mission' - A Hero in Our Memory"). This recognition establishes his status as a national figure. He is more than WP:BIO1E on Wikipedia. ManoiCMU (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only on the many research pages of Google Scholar results for the English version of the article subject that you start to find academic papers without the Thai in the title. Almost all of them seem accessible to me (here are some good research articles: Eight Hanuman, heroes, and Buddhist masculinity in contemporary Thailand, “The Heroes”: A Visual Narration of The Rescue), indicating there is a wealth of in-depth research available. Here is good one in Thai: จ่า แซม: การ สื่อสาร ความ ทรง จำ ร่วม ใน สื่อ อิเล็กทรอนิกส์ "Sergeant Sam: Communicating Shared Memories on Electronic Media". He has several lengthy articles in various books Buddhist Masculinities, Stories for Boys Who Dare to be Different and many more. He was also in TIME Annual 2018. ManoiCMU (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally not helpful to refer other editors to search result pages. A source needs to contain significant coverage, not just a trivial mention of the article subject. You should also explain how the sources you're citing establish notability instead of just linking to them. Some responses to a few of the sources you've noted:

• From "Eight Hanuman" (which is the exact same chapter as the one you've labelled "Buddhist Masculinities"): This chapter considers the hegemonic Buddhist masculinities on display in another crisis: the Tham Luang cave rescue of 2018. The heroes of the cave rescue, I argue, were perceived as embodying the ideal masculinity of Hanuman, the monkey god of the Thai Buddhist Ramakien, an adaptation of the Hindu Rāmāyaṇa epic. I do not think that this is relevant to establishing that Kunan should have a separate article under BIO1E because this is an analysis of the cave rescue itself, and the fact that he was compared to a monkey god according to a gender studies scholar is undue.
• This source only has trivial mentions of Kunan.
• Stories for Boys Who Dare to Be Different is a children's book.
• The Time 2018 source is about the event and Kunan's role in it.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the source provides trivial mentions of Kunan. In a paper, see Figure 9 section, which explains the significance of his statue, likening it to that of a deity. Even discounting children's book sources, there are many research papers about him, and I included the children's biography as a backup reference. ManoiCMU (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was asked by ManoiCMU at the article talk page to weigh in, but I don't really have an opinion on this. The subject is notable, but the question is whether said notability is independent enough to warrant a stand-alone article, which is a matter of editorial judgment. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Paul, you're the most oldest experienced Thai editor, with more knowledge of policies than I have. Even as a minor editor, I can see this subject is notable and sufficient for a stand-alone article. Why can’t you make a clear decision? You agree this subject is clearly notable, so please make an editorial judgment as an experienced editor. Thanks. ManoiCMU (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is a naval officer who also got awarded as a Knight posthumous and this was covered by Bakpop , one of the oldest newspaper in Thailand .this is enough to establish his notability to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. You can find it here https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1503426/posthumous-promotion-for-ex-seal Tesleemah (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tesleemah: The question here is not whether Kunan is notable, but whether this article should be redirected back to Tham Luang cave rescue under WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. His posthumous award, the film, and other coverage of him are all related to the one event he's notable for. All of that information is currently covered in the cave rescue article and there is no need for a second article. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If he is notable enough then he should stand alone with the content under Luang Cave Rescue either left intact or merged with his. Tesleemah (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Saman Kunan (Thai: สมาน กุนัน) to pass the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires ‘significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.’ Additionally, he meets WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of a first-class national order. Ordinary individuals do not receive large statues or have government buildings named after them. In Thailand, only prominent figures are honored in this way. He continues to receive significant coverage as a ‘national figure’ or ‘national martyr,’ even six years after his passing. I also sense WP:IDONTLIKE here. I am very familiar with similar cases, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Win Maw Oo. Thanks.Marcus MT (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC) 12:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He received those awards, statues, etc. because of the one event he's notable for. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by IDONTLIKEIT. Are you accusing me of being racist against Thai people and trying to erase their biographies from Wikipedia? I've provided a PAG-based reason for restoring the redirect. You may disagree with my rationale, but there's no need to throw around accusations about the intentions of other editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TECO Electric and Machinery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Sun, Yun-suan (2006). 臺灣奇蹟推手: 孫運璿先生管理講座紀念文集 [Promoter of Taiwan's Miracle: A Collection of Commemorative Essays of Mr. Sun Yun-Chuang's Management Lectures] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press [zh]. pp. 188–193. ISBN 978-986-00-7834-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.

     The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電 子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相 關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營 下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從 製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"

     From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."

  2. Shelton, Paul (2024-05-07). "Taiwan's TECO Electric and Machinery faces proxy battle. Shareholder group demands change of management and core business focus". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

     The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."

  3. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事 　15萬股民權益在哪裡？" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

     The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭，因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽，終於畫下暫時的逗點。"

     From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."

     The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果，只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行，未來，東元電機必須更努力證明，自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5％的模範生。"

     From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."

  4. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2024-09-11). Hong, Jia-ning 洪家寧 (ed.). "銀行教父如何改造傳產老店？專訪東元新董事長利明献「我來危機管理」". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

     The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年，去年毛利率創下七年新高，營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄，財務健全、負債比率低，無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年，也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期，父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看，吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰，東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定，利明献認為，中長期來看，過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響，東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"

     From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."

  5. Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效 國際肯定 榮獲MSCI AA評級 列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

     The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業，根據國際知名評比MSCI（Morgan Stanley Capital International）ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告，東元再進一級，由A級升等為AA級，永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出，東元董事會運作良善，董事獨立性符合投資人期待；而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證，為業界翹楚。"

     From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple articles by one organization listed as one source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mick Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPath^talk 04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Subject to another deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to Socialist Alternative (SA). That is, more or less turn back the clock to before the discussion of that redirect was started (including adding back the mention at the target; see my comment above). I find links.org.au and sa.org.au convincing enough to have him mentioned there, but too little for a standalone article. Both sources mention Armstrong at the very top, but only the latter does this because he comes alphabetically first; and judging from its critical standpoint, the former doesn't seem to be affiliated with SA. Books like this, while being self-published, at least demonstrate the link between Armstrong and SA (who surely wouldn't let him publish in their name if he wasn't speaking, well, in their name). As I said, there's not enough to demonstrate that Armstrong is notable enough for a standalone article, but the redirect looks like a straightforward "keep". Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Socialist Alternative (Australia). I'm not sure what context you suggest Armstrong's name would be added? Back to the further reading as a link to his book? TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes, that's the target I meant. Renerpho (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would Support the redirect back to the same target ONLY if mention is added back, and would Oppose the redirect if mention could not be added. The context in which mention could be added is as a member in the history of Socialist Alternative which says: .. established in 1995 by ex-members of the former International Socialist Organisation... The pre-BLAR history of Mick Armstrong says: In 1995, he and several other leading members, including Sandra Bloodworth and Jill Sparrow... went on to form Socialist Alternative. If the list of founders is not a large number, these three names, assuming they are not WP:UNDUE, can be mentioned in the History section. Jay 💬 16:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The material I removed from Socialist Alternative (Australia) on 6 October at Special:Diff/1249674311 stated:

  "According to National Executive member Mick Armstrong, Socialist Alternative's focus on student work is part of a perspective that the organisation has adopted for the political period due to what they see as their limited size and influence in the working class movement and the lack of any substantial radicalisation in society. Socialist Alternative's political orientation to students mirrors the development of the British Socialist Workers Party during the 1980s.^{[citation needed]} and had been taged as needing a citation since June 2024.

  The material you suggest adding to Socialist Alternative (Australia) is similarly problematic insofar that it has been tagged at Mick Armstrong as needing a citation from January 2020, seven months before the Armstrong article was first redirected at Special:Diff/971395084.

  If your suggested material is to be added a citation would be needed for it. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Socialist Alternative (Australia) and add a mention of Mick Armstrong to the History section, as suggested by Jay. Yue🌙 21:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Poolu (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage. The references on the page are 1) about the book and 2) don't even mention the show (FAKEREF?). A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any significant coverage. Note there is a movie under the same name for those doing a search prior to voting. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Gemini_TV#Current_broadcasts -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 2 sources on the page that are about the author and her book and nothing on the series that the page is on. Fails WP:SIGCOV about the series in sources and no reviews by critics with reliable sources on the page. RangersRus (talk) 16:50, 20 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!} 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

232d Medical Battalion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 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!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, — Maile ,

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

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

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

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

• Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheBirdsShedTears, neither of the refs you added is independent, so what is the basis of your keep !vote? JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment - the added refs mentioned above do not appear to be independent. So I'm not sure those really count towards notability. I agree with the above that military units often are notable, but I'm not sure we can really !keep unless there is independent coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The refs are definitely not independent and do not count towards notability whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Espinar bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Sole acceptable source is from BBC Scotland Business news reporting on his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association. Not sufficient to demonstrate notability as a "mention in passing (example given at BASIC is "John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University")" AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets. Only about 30-40 awarded every year in a country of 67 million people. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As we established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shearman, honours, which are routine for British ambassadors to receive from their employer, do not eliminate the requirements for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We established no such thing. Only a minority of diplomats or even ambassadors have high honours such as the CMG. You made a patently false claim by citing only very senior ambassadors who do have such honours and the AfD was closed before I could answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not false. A very large number of British ambassadors have received honours from their employer, many with fairly unremarkable careers. That doesn't override BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Who are you to state they've had unremarkable careers? A high honour would suggest otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The only instance of IDONTLIKEIT is your approach to the requirement for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:BASIC after adding references which were trivial to find: WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. Jonathan A Jones (talk)

The two most recent sources you've added are primary. I actually did see the government sources before nominating but I know that per BASIC "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing some routine announcements about his appointments, but nothing independent, secondary, and significant. And content following "According to the official biography" is obviously not independent or secondary. Receiving an award also doesn't mean the subject is exempt from notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to pass BASIC, see e.g. Buenos Aires Times (158 words), Nation Thailand (327 words), MercoPress (176 words), VietnamPlus (about some sort of award he received from the Vietnam government, 100 words), Press and Journal (287 words), Bangkok Post (1000+ words w/quotes), etc. Also, if everyone failing ANYBIO but meeting BASIC gets an article, and everyone meeting ANYBIO has to pass BASIC to get an article, that effectively means that ANYBIO is 100% wholly worthless. Or maybe, just maybe, there is a purpose in having such criteria, such as that categories of people winning major awards should be complete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point I've made many times. If ANYBIO is routinely ignored then what on earth is the point of it? The point of it is to catch people who have had careers in unglamorous occupations but who have received high honours from their country, in recognition that, glamorous or not, they have made a significant contribution to the world. Wikipedia is not a reality TV talent contest, but a serious encyclopaedia that should cover such people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Except WP:ANYBIO explicitly, unambiguously states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It does not in any sense override BASIC requirements. It's a guide that indicates a likelihood of notability, not a free pass. If you want that to change, feel free to propose it instead of bringing up reality television at every AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sources identified, I can't see them contributing to notability. Interviews are primary sources. A brief mention of his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association is not an acceptable source as I pointed out in the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing all of those sources, especially the Bangkok Post 1,300-word feature on 'The workaholic ambassador', which contains over 700 words on Kent that is not quotes, is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware what it says. I'm pointing out that if it's sneered at whenever it's mentioned then it's utterly pointless, which suggests it's intended to be taken into consideration. What do you think it's there for precisely? Don't actually think I've mentioned reality television before! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears to meet WP:BASIC, per others. SirMemeGod  15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguni (district) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NPLACE. Noah ^💬 00:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• but the subject not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria or NPLACE and in addition NPLACE does not supersede GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This seems like an incredibly arbitrary AfD, there are hundreds of thousands of places that fail GNG but are included on Wikipedia because they pass NPLACE. Noah ^💬 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again NPLACE does not supersede GNG and to pass either one they sources of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources (IRS) need to be provided for verification.. Articles about places that fails GNG and is in the main space is because no one/editor yet to AfD the articles and it is NOT because they are in main space means they pass GNG. Thousand of article that fail GNG or SNG are in Wikipedia and they always CAN be AfD if anyone nominate them in regardless how long the articles in main space Wikipedia. There might be other languages have IRS about the place which I dont know know those languages, but if anyone can find them then add them in the article and let me know.05:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:NPLACE. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Quick google search can easily found multiple independent coverage of this district. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 18 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!} 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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