Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 29

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Jutson (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:AUTHOR. A search on google news found articles authored by her but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. This article she is merely quoted as a cafe visitor. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had a good look around and there is no SIGCOV. I also can't find really any mention of them in major NZ media outlets at all. Does not meet notability. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, support nomination rationale as notability is not established for the subject. Mekomo (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The sourcing in the article as it stands is very poor and just like others I could find no sigcov which could be used to improve it. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Baghdadiyun, Akhbaruhum Wa Majalisuhum (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 about a book that is currently entirely lacking in in depth coverage in reliable independent sources so appears not to pass WP:NBOOK. Better sources may be available in Arabic but I haven’t found any. Mccapra (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Georgia relations (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 solely based on primary sources from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Cyprus). Lacking third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, and Georgia (country). LibStar (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing sources that could established notability. Yilloslime (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Action (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 poorly formatted article; most of the sources in the article and the before search seem to revolve around Helen Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information has been deleted from the page.

The information deleted was a description of this organisation. Why?

https://centenaryaction.org.uk/ Kps2015 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your explanation is a reason for deleting the article according to the guidelines. Kps2015 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Kps2015 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Kps2015 Notability isn't inherited; this is both a deletion argument to avoid and referenced in the biographical notability standards. The spirit of this guideline quite likely applies to companies people own. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your response (although I don't fully understand it!).

The problems with this page arise from the fact that fuller information about this organisation has been deleted (on grounds of copyright). The solution is to restore the full information about this organisation, not to delete the page. I will endeavour to sort this out. Kps2015 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 I really doubt that restoring the information will help with keeping the article. It's probably best to find sources that talk about centenary action without centering Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't "centre Pankhurst" it makes one mention of her. That is not a valid reason for deleting the page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability isn't inherited" - I think what you are saying that it isn't of interest that the grand-daughter of those who campaigned for women's suffrage is campaigning in this area today. I would have thought that is arguable. Either way, how is that a reason for deleting an entire page about a major campaigning organisation, rather than simply amending it? Kps2015 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 You misundertand. I'm saying that it appears that Centenary Action is inheriting notability from that great-grandaughter, which I interpret to be something in violation of an invalid way to get notability. Please read the link I gave you. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses - if you look at the organisations which are members you will see that this is a serious lobbying organisation. Your personal feelings about the founder aren't a reason to delete a Wikipedia page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify to allow work on improving sourcing. PamD 13:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PamD I'm open to this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @PamD. I think that you can see that this is a serious organisation with a good cause. If you can suggest any improvements, that would be welcome. If you would like me to supply any further information, do let me know. Kps2015 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kps2015 The truth of the matter is, there are many, many serious organizations that have good causes that either don't have Wikipedia articles, or have surprisingly short ones. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a reason to delete a page. Please state on what grounds you believe that the page should be deleted. Kps2015 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kps2015 I've already explained my concerns over notability on this very page. I don't need to explain them again. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your response.

  Your objection makes reference to a company. There is no company and no ownership. This is simply a campaign organisation to increase the representation of women in the UK parliament.

  Please either provide a reason for deleting this page that falls within the guidelines for deleting a page or remove your objection. Kps2015 (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kps2015 My objection in my first reply here to is within guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per PamD to give time and scope to improve the article - including the formatting, referencing, text and removal of some puffery (WP:NPOV). Note - this is an organisation, but is non-commercial therefore the stricter notability guidelines for WP:NORG do not apply and the subject is expected to meet WP:NGO in its own right. ResonantDis_tortion 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as created by a paid editor, who has taken six days since first being told about the need to declare this before doing so. PamD 16:29, 29 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} 23:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can only find hits on the words, nothing about this organization. Could perhaps be a line or two in women's voting rights in the UK or something, but we don't have coverage in RS. Most of them in the article are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Boyarski (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 notable only for one event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with nominator, otherwise ordinary citizen who received brief attention for action that while laudable, does not attribute him with notability (or coverage demonstrating such) warranting inclusion in an encycloapedia. Keeping would cross BLP1E and NOTNEWS.— MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Does his MB qualify him for The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor? Cremastra (u — c) 23:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. It's not nothing, but it's not highly mega-notable enough to render him permanently notable in the absence of sustained WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". He was awarded both a Carnegie Medal for heroism and a Canadian Medal of Bravery. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Maile66 an award alone does not confer notability. Per WP:N - (in reference to notability guidelines including WP:ANYBIO): People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards… meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Awards don't make people notable enough for encyclopedia articles if your source for the award is the award's own self-published website about itself — that's a primary source, not a GNG-building one, and that wipes out two of the three footnotes here. The key to making him permanently notable on this basis would require coverage about him in third party sources unaffiliated with the statement — namely media coverage and/or books — and just one hit of that isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's no way that this wasn't covered in newspapers when it happened in 1985. I'm skeptical that this is more than WP:BLP1E, but if no one's even found those news articles I don't think we can say we've done a full search for sources yet. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 29 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!} 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination, fails WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election. Closing early. This should not have been de-redirected in the first place without going through WP:DRV. I'll salt. asilvering (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Gibson (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)

Consensus in the previous AfD that this was a WP:BLP1E due to the only coverage being in the context of a failed election campaign. Was recreated by a new user with few edits outside of this page. Don't think anything has changed since the last AfD (there's been some minor coverage of a bill she advocated for a few months later but nothing substantial), and the article should be redirected back to 2023_Virginia_House_of_Delegates_election, with the title ECP'd. I also think having an article about a person whose apparent sole reason for notability is a sex scandal is inadvisable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, and Virginia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete - I defer to more experienced Wikipedians than me. Thank you for the summary. I'll add three main points. Pmcc3 (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A) One significant change since the last AfD wrapped up is that S.G. lost the election which makes her less notable than if she had won ("Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges with emphasis added).

B) Also, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

C) Examining the WP:BLP1E standard, the first two criteria arguably are met (1, only in context of the single event; 2, low profile) but what of criterion 3? There my assessment is that it is not "well documented" because there is one WaPo article and then many reports essentially parrot the WaPo article uncritically (or copy it inaccurately). If the WaPo article gets anything wrong, so will its derivatives. In the case of Joe Gow for comparison, there was much adversarial analysis in committee hearings at a University with lawyers present over the course of months (with no politics or election deadlines) in order to try to determine the truth, and many independent reporters, and still many facts are in dispute. The WaPo article about S.G. was published rapidly in the middle of a political campaign. It describes its own "Deep Throat" as follows: "The Republican operative who alerted The Post to the videos ... provided the information on the condition of anonymity to avoid being drawn into the controversy." The WaPo article is based in part on audio in the videos, but fake words trivially could have been dubbed, not even requiring sophistication of deep fakes. The WaPo, like TwitterX, is owned and controlled by a single individual, sullying each one's trustworthiness. Pmcc3 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmcc3: You're obviously new to AfD. When you comment in the discussion, you're supposed to provide a clear indication of your position. If you support deleting the article, you should place a bolded Delete at the front of your comment, or in the case of redirecting, a bolded Redirect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am indeed a novice to almost every aspect of contributing to Wikipedia and have always been impressed that it works as well as it does. Apologies and thanks again. Pmcc3 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election per Hemiauchenia. And then protect the redirect. Polygnotus (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with salt. Nothing has changed since the first discussion that would give her a stronger basis for permanent notability now than she had a year ago. As always, the test that has to be passed is not "has been recently present in the news cycle", it's "she's done something of such enduring significance that people will still be looking for an article about her ten, twenty or thirty years from now", and nothing stated here reaches that standard of importance. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Agree with the OP and other commenters, as well as the admin closure in the prior AfD: "Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal". – notwally (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Overall, I'm seeing a consensus to keep the article here. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Azrael (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)

Band exited, two of the members died.. existence is not notability. WP:NALBUM not established. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They probably meet WP:BAND criteria #1 with coverage like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
  And definitely meet criteria #5:
  Has released two or more albums on [...] one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
  Metal Blade Records has been established for 42 years and has numerous other notable acts; a quick search shows this group has released at least two albums on that label. RachelTensions (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Much of those coverage are reflections/opinion blogs. Graywalls (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if you disregard all the reviews I linked to (but you shouldn't), they still unequivocally meet WP:BAND notability criteria #5. RachelTensions (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Allmusic bio and two reviews, Blabbermouth review.. Reviews are opinions, but are considered reliable if there is editorial oversight. The previous AFD also mentioned a couple of finds in Newspapers.com. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a review from Metal Injection. toweli (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toweli:, can we ascertain if it's a notability establishing reliable source? It says an online publication. So, we first have to see if it's more along a blog, WP:HUFFPOCON, or closer to Vogue magazine. The wiki article had an exhaustive EMPLOYEE DIRECTORY in it.. so I'm not feeling too confident. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the Wikipedia article is of course irrelevant. What matters is editorial oversight of reviews, which stops random people from reviewing anonymously. Geschichte (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A zine consisting of members of one or two bands can have an editorial oversight. Such is completely useless in notability though. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That discussion is just your response to a long list of sources. LINK No discussion other than your opinionated it's reliable. Nothing followed acknowledging/refuting. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make an assessment of Metal Injection or any of the sources except Bloody Disgusting. Most of the assessment including Metal Injection was by @Sergecross73:, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection has been on WP:RSMUSIC for a long time without any contention I can recall. It has no restrictions on its use either. I believe it counts toward notability. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are referring to by "zine consisting of members of one or two bands". What it looks like is making up fictitious types of sources, and grasping at one straw after another. Furthermore, it would benefit the discussion if you stopped bludgeoning it. Geschichte (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has reliable sources coverage such as AllMusic and Metal Injection and some newspaper articles linked in the previous AfD discussion. Overall there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The many sources found by all the "keep" voters above are more than enough to establish notability, at least pertaining to the extreme metal community. The many album reviews have editorial oversight, and several have some band history that can be used to flesh out the article. Color me suspicious of the nominator's initial reasoning (no sign of WP:BEFORE) and continuing resistance to different opinions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinya Tokuni (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)

Massively fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Was rightfully prodded only 5 minutes after it was created, but now it's time to end it once and for all. There is no claim to notability whatsoever, and if anything, the speedy deletion criteria should be amended to include cases like this. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia is also unsourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Otego (town), New York. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calder 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)

Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The rather small hill seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge reliably sourced content and redirect to Otego, New York#Communities and locations in the Town of Otego. Insufficient coverage for a separate article. Rupples (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Otego_(town),_New_York#Communities_and_locations_in_the_Town_of_Otego: as an obvious target. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kilgore, Texas#Sports. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports in Kilgore (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 or WP:SIGCOV. Subject is of a very small town. Only sources are primary. All relevant information is already in Kilgore, Texas -1ctinus📝🗨 20:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Sports, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kilgore, Texas#Sports. Agree with nom that this doesn't appear to be a notable standalone topic; I searched for sources and couldn't find anything meaningful to establish notability. Left guide (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, information is already in the main article. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - The references are all league information pages being hosted by a web hosting provider. They are not independent, and do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability because they are content provided by the web hosting customer, the league.

Reliable independent sources may exist, but are not in this article, so it is reasonable to move the article into draft space and allow the originator time to find sources (but not reasonable to leave the article in article space while reliable sources are lacking). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kilgore, Texas#Sports as a sensible WP:ATD, which is better than deletion or draftspace (which would be my least preferred option, as there is now evidence a notable article could be created from a draft). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D. Pantera (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)

Failed WP:BEFORE search. So unsourced that I missed the one source that was there and accidentally BLPROD'd initially (it was rightfully reverted by GB fan). Unfortunately, I find that non-BLP PRODs get reverted by article creators pretty quickly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Military, and Maryland. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination, fails WP:GNG and lacks adequate WP:RS citations. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 21:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Pine Cone (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 opening line says it all: "The Carmel Pine Cone is a small weekly Californian newspaper." and it's been one since its inception. Carmel-by-the Sea is a tiny town. The fact the the Pine Cone has an article here has been used to suggest that articles in it carry notability. That has been used in the construction of a walled garden by a single editor to boost the reputation of this tiny place. Despite a reference in the NYT (close inspection will show it to be a passing mention) not one of the ten references verify any notability. WP:V is one of our key tenets. No V? No article. Fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a four-column long feature story in the Los Angeles Times, a major newspaper. Furthermore, Newspapers.com brings up a total of over 2,000 mentions of this paper, including other coverage such as [6] [7]. Sufficient to pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Aside from the fact that it was deployed by the COI/UPE creator as boosterism for promoting Carmel-by-the-Sea. The weekly tabloid newspaper, Carmel Pine Cone has a small circulation serving a town of about 3,000 people. It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals or Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals)#Criteria. As a business/company, it does not meet WP:NCORP, and as mentioned in the nom, does not fulfill verification of notability. Note to BeanieFan, best practices is WP:THREE, plus the newspaper fails WP:NCORP notability criteria for organizations or companies which is required and overrides GNG. Netherzone (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when can GNG be "overrided"? Three sources were listed above, including a near-full-page feature story in one of the largest papers in America – in what way does that not satisfy GNG or NCORP? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The paper has been around for more than a century. It has been featured in 60 Minutes and the Los Angeles Times for its reporting. It's also adjudicated as a newspaper of record by Monterey County. If we delete a newspaper Wiki article with this level of notability, then we'd have to delete most newspaper Wiki articles. Eric Schucht (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources show this meets the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we slow down Carmel-related AfDs please? Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - The Newspaper.com link above is pretty impressive. 2,223 (1,262 in California) matches for "Carmel Pine Cone". Click on that list, and it looks to include each of the Unitied States. — Maile (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To provide a short backstory for context, this article is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo; here is a link to ANI that will provide more context:[8]. This was the final ANI discussion that led to the creator's site ban after many, many discussions.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor, Left guide who deleted some of the material, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sources, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions as problems went on for over a decade before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequate sourcing has been brought to meet GNG. Whether it can be used for supporting notability of other articles is a separate question to its own notability; no-one is suggesting deleting Daily Mail. I looked additionally at the WL Ebscosearch and there are 29 hits, some of the selection that I clicked go beyond a casual mention; eg THE 1950 ANTA PRODUCTION OF THE TOWER BEYOND TRAGEDY. KARMAN, JAMES. Jeffers Studies. 2021/2022, Vol. 22, p27-94 (more than a paragraph); James H . Worthington (1884-1980): A quest for totality, observatories & Martian canals. Mobberley, Martin. Journal of the British Astronomical Association. Dec2018, Vol. 128 Issue 6, p331-346. (paragraph); SCOOP SEASON. CARTER, ASH; BRIGHT, JOSHUA. Town & Country. Aug2012, Vol. 166 Issue 5385, p92-99 (3 short paras); or give useful factual information eg Missing Women: The Inexplicable Disparity Between Women In Steinbeck's Life And Those In His Fiction. Gladstein, Mimi Reisel. Steinbeck Question: New Essays in Criticism. 1993, p84-98 (one of the women described became its editor); History and Historicity in the Work of Langston Hughes. Ostrom, Hans. Critical Insights: Langston Hughes. 2012, p69-86 (Langston Hughes published poetry in it); but even the passing mentions/citations suggest that a wide range of independent reliable publications (incl. academic journals, academic books, British newspapers) consider material in the Carmel Pine Cone to be worth citing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the problematic history of our Carmel articles, not all Carmel articles are non-notable, even when the topic itself is localized to Carmel. Just as with any other town, some local institutions are actually notable. In this case, some of our many sources are not in-depth, but sources primarily about this newspaper in the Oakland Tribune (1916) and Los Angeles Times (2003 & 2013) are non-local, in-depth, and reliable, giving a pass of WP:GNG and of the stronger non-local sourcing requirements of WP:NCORP. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (1932) and Orange County Register (1940) pieces also appear from their headlines to be non-local newspaper stories primarily about this topic, but I have no link to judge their depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is plenty of significant coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources listed above seem to be enough for GNG and NCORP. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, not everything local is non-notable and the sources here seem to evidence notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 22:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Heron (writer) (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 hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. He acted in a play which had 1,000 attendees. This is true barrel scraping. This is a Born - Lived - Died article about a WP:ROTM person who was doubtless notable to the who loved him 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Theatre, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Modern_era: where he is listed with a source; coverage exists so that other sources can be added and some content merged. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (see below, given sources presented, for the sake of transparency, note that I received a message inviting me to reconsider my !vote in light of new sources).-Mushy Yank (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Someone has eviscerated this article -- I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Yes, indeed, removed sources tend to prove a much better article is possible, I am therefore not opposed to a plain Keep, another solution being a Merge with Forest Theater. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eviscerating and then nominating this article makes sense if you understand the context of User:Greghenderson2006's eventual site block. Greg spent many years building a "walled garden" of articles about people, buildings and institutions that were famous in the small community of Carmel-by-the-Sea. His articles all used self-published sources, no matter how often he was told to stop, and that's what was deleted in this article. If you're interested, here's the final ANI discussion which led to Greg's site ban. Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not satisifed with your response, because the edits that were made in deleting the sources and content were really bad edits that left the article (and the other similar articles) ungrammatical and virtually unreadable. It would be expremely helpful for someone to list the specific sources that you object to and detail why they are not acceptable, even for non-controversial facts, and then we can make better edits or, possibly, merge, redirect or delete. But these arguments that the article should be deleted simply because the person who created it was blocked, and/or because it was one of several articles used to build out information about the locality, does not explain why the person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, just to be clear: I personally had nothing to do with deleting anything from this article. I just remembered the ANI discussions, so I wanted to provide that context. Toughpigs (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Djflem (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Djflem, pray elaborate: regarding whose comments and for what reason should we read this extremely long essay? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wanted to address the 'walled garden' comment and the idea that any and or all articles written by Greghenderson should be deleted. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is not valid reason for deletion.Djflem (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying! I agree with you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this clarification of the context. I still don't think eviscerating and then nominating a page is a good approach, but, honestly, that's just me. As for "self-published sources", maybe that was the reason you blocked that user but may I ask if Watkins, R. G., Hoyle, M. F. (1925). History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California: Biographical S.J. Clarke (1925) was self-published? It was removed (used 5 times). Thanks again. (I will stand by my triple !vote, if I may; opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Djflem (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem apparently the page was deleted; so maybe another target could be considered? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - concur with SchroCat, above. Tim riley talk 09:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is some coverage here, here, here and here. I think its enough to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a perfectly notable article Jack1956 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I'm content with the sources uncovered to pass GNG. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined four times in AfC, and after the fourth decline the draft creator moved it to mainspace. I've removed a BLP violating section with various very poor sources including Google Docs pages(!).

There is no actual claim to notability. The only independent, secondary source that provides more than extremely minimal coverage is the NYT article which is not enough. WP:BLP1E also applies to that source. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Management, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COAT. This is a stub about accusations of sexual assault masquerading as an article about a run of the mill producer. I’m against userfying this because it’s been moved to main space without vetting. If we’re going to have an article about the accusations, then it needs to be written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Inglis (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 search to check if he was notable only returned interviews and other primary sources. As notability isn't inherited from something else, I don't think he's notable. Tavantius (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Tavantius (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Just because other people won awards for their roles in films, doesn’t make him notable. There’s literally no other relevant sources about him. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only references that are used, are claims to the awards of BAFTA features that Inglis was involved in. However, being involved in the award can only go so far if the subject itself is never given significant coverage there. Searching externally, I'm not seeing the coverage we're after either, so I'm left !voting to delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Shaikh (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 BLP was created by Fadushake (talk · contribs) - the subject themselves, as shown in the edit summary. I did a quick G'search and found nothing substantial to establish GNG, so I’m nom it for deletion. The subject has had roles in a few TV series, but that doesn’t guarantee their standalone BLP on Wikipedia. Anyone arguing that they meet NACTOR should keep this in mind when voting. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He does seem to meet WP:NACTOR fairly with multiple significant roles (including more than 10 lead roles [I would not call this "a few"]) in notable productions. And that is verifiable through various sources on the page (even if some sources are not great) or via the articles about the productions when they exist (note that the absence of a page for any given production is not necessarily the sign of non-notability (nor of notability, clearly)) Also note that various sources and lead section used Sheikh (not Shaikh) for his name (example: https://theazb.com/fahad-sheikh-to-star-in-pakistans-first-ever-digital-feature-film/ https://www.mangobaaz.com/23-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-actor-fahad-sheikh/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mushy Yank, It seems your vote was based on WP:OR, which I have removed. You need to provide evidence of their lead roles, as I don’t see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? :D.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In the list mentioned in the Television section, 11 of his dramas are notable enough to have a separate Wiki Page. In many, he is in the lead role. Still not met NACTOR?--Gul Butt (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) — Gul Butt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  We can cleanup page or put COI tag, reason everyone knows. Gul Butt (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Gul Butt, Your vote resembles WP:ATA. You should explain how they meet NACTOR. I've removed the WP:OR, which claims the subject has had lead roles. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ATA is an extremely long essay and should not be opposed to a !vote without further precision. Most of all, Gul Butt very very very very explicitly explained how and why the guideline is met in their opinion. As for your removal of material from the page during an AfD, I would suggest you refrain from doing so and rather add a tag to the content you deem unsourced. Thank you. Aside: do you honestly doubt that his roles are lead roles??? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mushy Yank, You all are voting to keep this BLP based on WP:OR and I don't need your permission to remove WP:OR from a BLP, even if the BLP is at AFD. You should provide evidence of how the actor meets NACTOR instead of relying on WP:OR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ’You all?’ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not satisfied with presented sources (they are churnalism, in my view), and my reasonable before finds nothing which meets RS. Any argument on what Wikipedia says about a subject is ridiculous, since we're not allowed to cite the pedia here. The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. Given this is a BLP and a self-promotional autobiography to boot, I can't keep. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking through my delete, since a large quantity of sources have been presented. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one, at least among the two other !voters, and that includes myself, has made any argument on what Wikipedia says about [the] subject (emphasis mine) (not sure whose "ridiculous" argument based on cit[ing] the pedia you have in mind, but on this page, there's none that I can see; the existence of pages about certain productions is only mentioned as an indication that the said productions are probably considered notable and while I agree that factor alone is not enough, the absence of a page is also, therefore, not enough to prove any given production is not notable. But a WP page is, in certain cases, the easiest starting point to check given roles are main/lead: the verification is made "via" (consider I use capital letters and bold, and in big :D) the articles (and the sources they contain); it is not based on what the article "says"; even so-so sources (cited or simply available online) can be used for verification of that, even intro of interviews (for example: the mention "‘Jalan’ star" in https://dailytimes.com.pk/696033/jalan-star-fahad-sheikh-says-fahad-mustafa-is-his-mentor/ (certainly not a great source and certainly not sufficient to demonstrate notability) allows to verify the role is not minor. Again, these sources are not direct proof of notability but help verify the roles are "significant", which is what the applicable specific guideline requires. Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is refuting my central argument: The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. We have lots of admittedly bad sources, I'll agree. We have none which meet my standard for IRS directly detailing. None. On a BLP. ALSO an autobiography. This isn't close. Delete. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mushy Yank, You should have realized by now (and there are more examples like this such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this imv unnecessary (I'm being polite) ad hominem remark. I won't even bother commenting on its inaccuracy myself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mushy Yank, Labeling my comments as ad hominem just because you have no counterarguments is, ironically, a form of ad hominem itself. If I had said that you’re losing your credibility with those kinds of keep votes in the AFDs, that would be an ad hominem remark. imv. Let's focus on the actual discussion! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this extremely inappropriate ad hominem remark. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Taking User:Mushy Yank to ANI about this issue. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also inviting the user to remove material added to their comment, after my reply; per Wikipedia:REDACTED and to move them below or where they wish. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. References in Brecorder are not independent as Aaj TV is part of the group [9]. 103.82.120.217 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 103.82.120.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep, clearly. He played lead roles in Azmaish[10], Jalan (TV series)[11] and perhaps others, and important secondary roles in many other series. Lots of coverage in English-language sources, probably more in non-English sources. Fram (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram, I'm sorry, but I still can't verify from the provided sources that Fahad had lead roles. Just doing a few roles on some TV shows doesn’t necessarily mean he played a lead role. And let’s assume that someone played lead roles in a few TV series. Does this mean they are inherently considered WP:N and don’t need to meet the NBASIC? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    GNG is even less of an issue, consideribg the many nexs sources specifically about him. But the dispute was that people couldn´t vrtify that he played lead roles despite e.g. this stating this explicitly, and it being implicit in many other sources. Have any of the "delete" voters even attempted to do a WP:BEFORE search or is it simply more fun to be aggressive against the keeps? Fram (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NACTOR clearly states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and as admin clarified, WP:NACTOR says significant roles, not major, as one of the two paths to entertainer notability. [12], A supporting role can be significant. A single scene or a single line can be significant depending on context [13], The policy does not say lead [14]. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram, Yes, there are reliable native language sources discussing him which includes Dawn News, Daily Jang, Dawn News, Express News, Independent News. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don’t want to come across as a BLUDGEON, so this may be my final comment on this AFD. I’d like to highlight that the section on entertainers clearly states, Such a person may be considered notable if using the term may be considered. That said, even if someone has played a few roles in TV series, I'm not convinced they deserve a BLP unless they have significant roles in multiple notable TV series, which isn't the case here, imv because many of the series in which this actor has appeared don't even easily meet WP:N, despite articles being created about them. Similarly, meeting a subject-specific guideline means the topic is presumed to be notable, not that the individual is necessarily notable. So while there may be some press coverage on the subject, it appears to be paid PR churnalism and not something that can pass GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You'll need a very strong reason for why the subject should be evaluated under GNG instead of WP:NBASIC and WP:NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Jeraxmoira, I never said this should be evaluated under GNG instead of NACTOR, what I mean is that I'm not convinced it meets NACTOR for the reasons I mentioned above. Apologize if my comment above gave that impression. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage from Jalan (TV series) and the mentions of Jalan in subsequent articles about him indicate that it’s a significant role/work. Combined with his subsequent roles post-Jalan, is enough for NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've done some research and found that it was created by SPA Fadushake (talk · contribs) but at that time this BLP pertained to film-maker of same name and existed till 2019, then in July 2020, an unknown IP hijacked this article & replaced information of film-maker with actor of same name. Now if we are seeing hijacking then article should be reverted to film-maker. I am unsure whether this hijacking will reverted or AFD will continue. If we are here about actor then he is meeting notability criteria with three major roles i.e, Jalan (verified by 24 News), Azmaish (verified by The Express Tribune) and Naam Kya Rakha (verified by Daily Times). Also country's major publications discussing him with three mentioned above and some others are Daily Times, Daily Times, Dawn News, Daily Jang, Dawn News, Express News, Independent News, DAWN. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with Mushy Yank and Fram that the subject passes both NACTOR and GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:HEY. The subject has acted in enough TV series, both in lead and supporting roles to pass WP:NACTOR and there are multiple independent sources to pass WP:BASIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Bashir Tarar (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)

@Crosji: flagged this BLP and questioned its WP:N. I suggested they take it to AFD, but since they haven't, I'm stepping in to nom it for deletion because I don’t see it meeting GNG, even at the borderline. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 2 sources looks normal news coverage about transfer and posting of different departments.--Gul Butt (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing of note done by him during his tenure and as of now just doing his job. No body cares. 202.59.12.57 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP - Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. By all appearances, he seems to be some kind of career civil servant who has been promoted to border control director. He’s a “20” rank in the civil service, which is two levels below the highest grade of Pakistani law enforcement officers. That’s nice, but that’s not a claim to notability. If he did something (stopped an incursion) or was awarded a major award, then he might be notable. If you find anything more, please let me know. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Altau (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 managing director of JBAN, a non-profit organization, does not make a politician inherently notable. A non-elected politician in a nationwide office fails to meet WP:NPOL. Additionally, I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, so they also fail to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Estonia. GrabUp - Talk 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person has been interviewed by major outlets DW, VOC, ERR. He has appeared on C-SPAN, and has several articles in Estonian and English media.

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18] Tore Eestimees (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! To sustain a Wikipedia biography, we have to have enough sources that are about the person, more so than feature the person. Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEWS. We're not looking for sources in which he's speaking about himself or other things, we're looking for sources in which he's the subject being spoken or written about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He has not held any political role that would qualify as "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, but the sourcing is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lobbyists, content creators, and board presidents are not automatically notable, and he fails WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise, I’d have an article about me. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. The references provided are not about the subject himself and give no in-depth WP:SIGCOV. All three provided for the article simply list his name and that's all. ExRat (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ~ Tails Wx 21:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Newberry (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 hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. As for the play, 1,000 theatregoers is woefully small. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Theatre, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is an interesting entry about a small-town Mayor and newspaper publisher, but it is horribly written. Someone had removed a lot of the content before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is another entry in the "Carmelopedia" what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO effort to promote all things Carmel-by-the-Sea. This mayor, whose term ran for two years, of a town of less than 700 people during his term, does not meet notability criteria for an encyclopedia article. According to the article, he is "best known" for his efforts to keep Carmel free from tourists; this does not confer inherent notability. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. He was also a non-notable writer (fails WP:NAUTHOR) and he acted in a play at a local theater in Carmel (fails WP:NACTOR). (The Forest Theater section is because he acted in a play there - this is typical bloat/puffery from the editor who is now blocked for COI/UPE and poor sourcing.) The sources are all local or hyper-local, or sourced to the Carmel Residents Association (COI), or the questionable "Arcadia Publisher" Images of America series of books for the tourist trade. The New York Times citation does not mention him at all. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: How do you know that he only served as mayor for 2 years? The article says that the was elected for a 2nd term as mayor. Most mayors serve for 4 years, so that would indicate that he was mayor for 8 years. If that is not true, you should add refs to the article to make that clear for reviewers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox states that he was In office 1922–1924. I have no idea why his term was so short. Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are notoriously full of errors. It is far more likely that the infobox is simply wrong. Definitely never rely on uncited infobox assertions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify the claim in the two citations in the article regarding two mayoral terms either. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source says he was mayor from 1923-24.[19] It's from the Carmel Residents Association, so it's a connected source - doesn't contribute to notability and probably should not be used in the encyclopedia, esp. since the dates don't match up with the above. However, it also does not mention anything about a second term. The article creator had a habit of sometimes misrepresenting sources which was one of the reasons for his block, so the two term claim should probably be taken with a grain of salt unless it can be verified to an independent reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a NYT article that is helpful. I think the 2nd term as mayor is dubious and have deleted that, because if it were true, the NYT article would likely have said so. I also saw a listing of all the mayors of Carmel in a non-RS, but it listed someone else from 1928 to 1930. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's extensive coverage of him in California papers, see San Francisco Call and Post, Fresno Morning Republican, San Francisco Chronicle (2), Oakland Tribune (2). Easily passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources presented attest of his notability; a redirect and merge should have been considered anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources listed above seem to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources or redirect top List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. The so-called derogatory Carmelopedia rationale is NOT a valid one for nomination for AFD. Djflem (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources provided by BeanieFan11 are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG criterion and should be kept. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Google News suggest no WP:SIGCOV and the NYT article seems like a passing mention Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very week keep actually. The NYT article meets WP:ORGCRIT. It has editorial oversight so unless OP is able to show the publication failed to do so it can be used towards notability. By weak, I mean the other reference I found was this in TechCrunch. Parts of the article are obviously supplied by the company but there does appear to be enough independent coverage within to meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Will solidify my opinion after a full source review, but after an abbreviated one I am currently inclined to redirect to Very low Earth orbit. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm going to go with redirect for this one, just seems too soon for now. I'm not entirely sold on the NYT article, but I think I would go for a keep if we had 3 sources of equal quality (though I'd prefer it if at least one of them was better of course). Even with how much of it is made of quotes, the parts of it that don't (and are actually about the company) clear my threshold, if barely. Unfortunately, we don't have three, and the TechCrunch doesn't quite do it for me, and nor do any of the news articles that cite the NYT article offer enough additional content to swing things. As a plus, that NYT article should be suitable as a source for a bit of content to use in Very low Earth orbit which I'm recommending as the target as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Redirect to Very low Earth orbit. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The NYT article talks "in general" about the impact of sophisticated cameras in the sky and provides no in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company (which wasn't provided by the company and/or their founders). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely, this USA satellite company doesn't not meet GNG/WP:NCORP which requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why redirect to Very lo Earth orbit though? Could we not direct it to NASA? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Jammu. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Degree College, Doda (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:NSCHOOL. The currently cited sources are not WP:SIGCOV. While searching, I wasn’t able to find reliable sources with significant coverage. GrabUp - Talk 16:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Jammu and Kashmir. GrabUp - Talk 16:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Jammu after adding a mention there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also support a Redirect. GrabUp - Talk 17:15, 29 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!} 17:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to University of Jammu as an WP:ATD. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 15:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokuz Sekiz Müzik (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 pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Computing, and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 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!} 17:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Starship Excelsior episodes (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:NLIST, references consists of primary sources and unreliable sources like WP:IMDB. Mika1h (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Radio, and Lists. Mika1h (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Starship Excelsior was merged and redirected in 2023 following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive_9#GNG? Vegantics (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as being sourced only to the IMDb and the subject itself. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yogscast. Owen× ☎ 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lane (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)

Unclear notability, and the info is already covered in the The Yogscast article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point if he is already mentioned- lets create a redirect that redirects the simon lane visitors over to Yogscast's article. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 16:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested; it’s a reasonable alternative to deleting. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The yogscast: Prefer this to deletion. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per above comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hejaaz International 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. Schools are no longer considered to have inherent notability and few sources found to consider against the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. JMWt (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without significant coverage in multiple indepent secondary sources - fails WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only thing I'm seeing here is about pages and WP mirrors. No significant coverage, does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article for non-notable upcoming technology expo. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I could find was more of what's cited here: press releases, routine coverage in expo listings, and paid placement. I was about to redirect it to GITEX as an alternative to deletion, but thought it was better bring it to AFD first. Wikishovel (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Business, Technology, and Singapore. Wikishovel (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Looking rather promotional. Conferences happen all the time, this one doesn't look more notable than any other. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Rush (franchise) (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)

Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Crime (series) recently closed as delete, this article is suffering from the same problems. Gravity Rush, as a series, fails WP:GNG, and also goes against the guidelines established in WP:VG/POP#Remakes, expansions, and series articles (there are only 2 games and a film that is not yet in production) OceanHok (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OceanHok (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd agree that pretty much all of this is redundant with the page of the first Gravity Rush game and doesn't need to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant: all is covered in the game articles. Cameo appearances are actually covered twice since they're also in Kat (Gravity Rush)#Appearances. --Mika1h (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As mentioned, there's been a longstanding consensus that 2 entries in a series isn't enough to warrant a stand-alone series article, because generally all content can conceptually fit in either the existing first or second articles. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OceanHok. Not all series need a separate article. With only two original games, this continuity is already covered at the article about the first game. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Repeats info of two games adequately explained in their own article and the film can be merged into the article of the original game. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviencloud (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. Borderline A7. C F A 💬 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only thing of relevance I found in the sources is "thanks to the song's distributing label, Aviencloud, whose releases are copyright-free." from edm.com IgelRM (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 33 cites, and they're basically all a combination of self-cites, things that might say the word Aviencloud somewhere in passing, and quite a few about people or businesses who have some kind of tangential relation to Aviencloud and don't even mention it. There's basically nothing here about Aviencloud, even if you try and stretch the word "significant" as if it were taffy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• #comment I have reviewed the article and noticed a potential conflict of interest, as the title matches the name of the article's major contributor. Regarding its notability, the content is covered by 1 but I could not verify the reputation of this source. If it is considered reputable, it could support the page's relevance, in addition to other minor mentions. However, if it is not a credible source, the article would likely need to be deleted.Instant History (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I neutralized the article to an extent. Kept informative things only and kept some sources that are already cited on Wikipedia. As per my understanding the channel is supportive and popular among the particular niche. Also, I believe it meets general notability and notability of a YouTube channel/people if I compare with some similar pages that we have here.NatalieTT (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prison blogs (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:LINKFARM, linking only to external sites, with no other content besides that. Clearly unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unencyclopedic WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic per WP:LINKFARM Encoded  Talk 💬 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rescope - The current content is hardly salvageable, but there is some academic sources that make the topic notable.--cyclopia^speak! 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NOTGALLERY, also barely notable in my opinion. Except for a couple in here that could warrant either their own page, or a paragraph on the person's page. Aknip (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Allport (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. No evidence of notability from secondary sources. Only one appearance by a 4th tier team in English tournament. Demt1298 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Robinson (footballer) (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 No evidence of notability in secondary sources. One one match at the 4th level of English soccer. Demt1298 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a G4, but nor have factors changed in the last month since the most recent AfD. Star Mississippi 14:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and India. Star Mississippi 14:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about the previous afds, I found information about this show on the internet, and I checked it has a wikidata page and Hindi Wikipedia, I just tried to translate the Hindi version to English with additional references and following editing policies, please let me know if I made a mistake.

Initially, I made this with the AFC template but because there’s a long waiting time, I moved it directly to the mainspace.

Thanks.

Zuck28 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything wrong @Zuck28 and you're not required to use AfC. Each Wikipedia has their own guidelines for notability. Discussions here have concluded that it doesn't meet the requirements. Since the last discussion was a month ago, it's unlikely but consensus can change. The community will decide here whether it has. Star Mississippi 14:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt after 2 previous AFDs, this should have been WP:SALTed to protect against recreation. It doesn't meet English Wikipedia's WP:GNG standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Per Joseph3202. AA (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we appreciate your contribution, but the article was just deleted in September. Why not wait a few more months to see if it receives any substantial, in-depth coverage?Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of the Netherlands by education (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 notability guidelines for lists. Afaik, no sources in the Netherlands focus on the background of prime ministers in such a way. Dajasj (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Education, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. I would probably also nominate Religious affiliations of prime ministers of the Netherlands for deletion too, as I don't see any sources discussing that either. Procyon117 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1927 Georgia Bulldogs football team#Week 2: at Yale as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1927 Georgia vs. Yale football game (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)

Regular season college football game that has not received continued coverage. Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appeares pretty routine, not sure why this needs an article. Could be redirected to 1927 Georgia Bulldogs football team#Week 2: at Yale. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is nothing in the article or in any sources that explains why this game could be notable in the first place. A redirect seems pointless because this seems to be a very unlikely search term. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching on Google there isn't any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Might as well have the redirect. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 00:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 1927 Georgia Bulldogs football team#Week 2: at Yale as a reasonable ATD. This can be considered a possible search term as this game has significance to Georgia (though clearly not the WP:SUSTAINED coverage needed for an article here). I do not consider the redirect to be pointless. Frank Anchor 20:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Village (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 does not appear to be a notable place. It is not marked on Ordnance Survey mapping or included in List of United Kingdom locations: Has-Hd. Considering the references:

• "Post office directory": the only hit for "haven village" appears to be the phrase "Skegness is a small haven, village ...": a red herring
• Newcomb: confirms that "Haven Village" is a postal address but does no more
• Hennessy: "lives in Haven Village, Boston, which is a block of flats run by Encore Estate Management."
• Quadrant: survey is for "Haven Village ltd." - suburbs are not companies
• Archaeological: confirms Haven Village as a location, former warehouse site and mentions "groundworks associated with a residential development at Haven Village"

Nothing here suggests that HV is a "suburb" of Boston. The encyclopedia does not need an article on every housing development. PamD 12:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 12:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned this AfD at Talk:Boston, Lincolnshire#Boston-related AfD to draw it to the attention of editors interested in Boston. PamD 12:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the moment. The street-map and the Quadrant source make it clear what this is: a housing-development that includes both small houses and blocks of flats over 15 acres of Boston. Not an insignificant development, but not a suburb, just a run-of-the-mill development. In consequence, our article has nothing much to say, is misleading in the little it does say, and relies on an unhealthy mix of not-very-secondary sources (developers, local authorities) and trivia (over-filled bins). Elemimele (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to be a development with little else to show it has notability. This might change in time but at present it doesn't appear to meet the notability standards here. JMWt (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with other contributors. Not a recognised suburb and doesn't have presumed notability under WP:NPLACE. Inadequate coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch politicians with doctorates (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)

Firstly, it's a pretty niche topic and I'm not confident it's notable enough. Second, it's orphaned and it's not obvious to me what other articles could link to it. Third, it's outdated now and cumbersome to keep up to date. Luxorr (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, afaik this gets no attention in the Netherlands and the article appears to be started only because there is an American version. There are not enough Dutch politics editors here, so it is unlikely to get ever updated because it is low priority Dajasj (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an "X with Y" list, but I don't see any reliable sources about the topic of politicians with doctorates, Dutch or otherwise. Fails WP:NLIST.

Note I found a discussion for a page similar to this one: [20] Wizmut (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazeem Aremu (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:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. Majority of the sources are primary sources like Google scholars and the article has been drafted before. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either draftify or delete, as it is not notable, as you said. Primary sources are not acceptable (i will place a maintenance tag if not there for now) and it doesn't follow the WP:ANYBIO terms. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don’t see any claim of notability here—GNG or NPROF. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see a pass of WP:PROF (or anything else) from his position, citation record, etc. Also, although many of his works are in legitimate journals, I was a little troubled to see that his top-cited paper as listed by Google Scholar is claimed to be in a journal, "Journal of Nonlinear Functional Analysis", that I cannot find in MathSciNet or zbMATH, both of which should index all legitimate mathematics journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Delete doesn't satisfy WP:ANYBIO or even WP:NACADEMIC per lack of WP:SIGCOV and looks like it's a promo article even. Google News shows not the Guy but different one. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note that the source #2 looks like a blog. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think he has made a good start and in math citation numbers are low. Considering how long he has been active his publication record is impressive. Because the article was previously draftified it cannot be a second time, so delete is the only option. Note: Draft:Kazeem Aremu already exists, editor did a cut and paste. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've requested histmerge since BoyTheKingCanDance has made substantial edits. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think this is another case of too early career; the citation profile looks very promising for someone only a few years out of a PhD. Even if it were possible, moving to draft would not be helpful as another six months would be unlikely to significantly add to notability, but perhaps userify is an option if the creator desires it? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I share the same concern with David Eppstein and exactly the same with Espresso Addict above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]