Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 25

< September 24 September 26 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Million Club Foundation

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

This article is almost entirely written by someone who admits to a close connection with the subject, and the sources are all either articles about overpopulation in general, or from the foundation itself. So, I think it should be deleted due to lack of notability and potentially acting like an advertisement.Felix Croc (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely banned from WP. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NORG is the same of WP:ORG. The other question does not make sense. It's like asking a random person why the Earth is flat. gidonb (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb I think it is entirely reasonable to point out that the Dutch Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is also reasonable to request that you provide links to the sources you mention. If you don't mind, I would like to make the same request. Toadspike [Talk] 21:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By context, it should have been clear that the sources accessible and/or listed through Delpher, Nlwiki, and Google Books are the ones that convinced to support a keep. The idea that Nlwiki would be a legitimate source for Enwiki is silly. People throw all sorts of nonsense around and sometimes it sticks. Hard to believe that this text would be ambiguous: The references at Nlwiki, Delpher, and Google Books gidonb (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thoro augh discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Three of the four sources in the article are not reliable. The sources recently indicated aren’t either. That leaves one single source (Tamburino & Bravo, 2001). Even without reading it, this last source is a primary source and not directly about the actual subject of the page herein. In sum, that means this page is essentially original research, which is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia and something that we have never published. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gidonb above and this page is a nice entry in Wikipedia's overpopulation collection. The topic is of value, and sourcing seems adequate to keep it around as a page needing a couple more references. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources currently cited are either unreliable (YouTube) or do not mention the subject at all (the other three). I checked some of the sources in the Dutch Wikipedia article at random, only to find lots of opinion pieces, dead links, and some non-sigcov mentions. I think this topic produces a lot of false positives, as club members write opinion pieces all over the media, but this doesn't actually establish that the club is notable. I am also surprised to see WP:ILIKEIT from an experienced editor. Toadspike [Talk] 21:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC of research is that if something seems unlikely to be true (here an experienced editor who supposedly uses ILIKEIT) then usually it isn't true. This case is obviously no exception. What remains are just unpleasant comments. See above for the dubious source for this smear. gidonb (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided on whether or not they believe sources are adequate. A this point, a source assessment would be helpful. If not a full assessment, if those editors arguing to Keep could identify two sources, from the article or other sources, that provide SIGCOV, that might help bring this discussion to a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to have been created, and heavily edited by Jan van Weeren as noted Special:Contributions/Janvanweeren here, who is the secretary of OverBevolking that said Ten Million Club became. The sources used are dubious looking and the article feels like advertisement. The most reliable sources on the article don't actually talk about the organization at all. Even searching in Dutch the mentions of the organization all seemed mostly trivial, so it doesn't really seem to meet WP:NORG to me. Barring that, the article would absolutely need to be re-written given the COI Editing. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, perhaps a little unexpectedly. The sources in the article don't work, but I searched under its past name (and present name, "Stichting OverBevolking"), and while there are many media hits under both names, they are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or op-eds by affiliated individuals. I don't see any independent WP:SIGCOV for this organization, but if someone turns up links to some examples I would of course be happy to revisit my !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 2 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 Football at the 2002 Asian Games – Men's team squads. Per comments - if in the future info that indicates WP:GNG met this is not a final close/done. Tawker (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yong-su (footballer)

[edit]
Kim Yong-su (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to North Korean 2002 Asian Games squad. Simione001 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017#May. Owen× ☎ 23:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017 Peshawar bombings

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
May 2017 Peshawar bombings (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)

Last AfD was no consensus with minimal participation. The 5 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported and WP:NOTNEWS also applies. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to (cut down) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017 (sources describe it as terrorism). What we did with the last 100 of these. I doubt we will get more participation this time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 1992 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yong-ho

[edit]
Kim Yong-ho (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatmir Mehmet

[edit]
Fatmir Mehmet (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)

Bio stub of a Kosovo liberation fighter whose death seems to have attracted widespread coverage, though the independence of the sources cited is not clear to me. Tagged for notability for nine months so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. Consensus is trending towards merging these by-position lists to a single comprehensive one, perhaps with fewer listed per position, as a viable ATD. I am also closing the other nominated by-position lists similarly. Editors are welcome to BOLDly merge the lists mentioned here but not currently nominated, or start a discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders

[edit]
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders (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)

What's offered in this article's references and external links section is a collection of publications from MLB (primary non-independent source) and baseball-reference.com (a stats database), neither of which count towards notability. Furthermore, most of them don't actually discuss this list topic but are instead being used in a WP:SYNTH manner. These two sources publish some variant of the list, but lack the requisite secondary SIGCOV needed to establish notability. An extensive WP:BEFORE search wasn't of much help. I discovered this source from Baseball Almanac; it has a table of random stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with a brief mention of three random unrelated factoids, but no meaningful discussion about this list topic specifically. bb_catchers.tripod.com contains two sentences discussing this list, but the site has no apparent editorial or authorial information, so it's likely WP:SPS. This source contains a footnote with a single sentence (which means it falls short of SIGCOV) mentioning only the first-place entry (which means it fails NLIST). At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. In light of the aforementioned article review and search for sources, delete. Left guide (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Reywas92's proposal at related AfDs. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP lists of career leaders for batting, pitching and baserunning categories (such as hits, wins and stolen bases) are older, generally dating to between 2004 and 2007; the lists of fielding leaders are more recent, generally from around 2019, but are no less valid. Also, the batting, pitching and baserunning lists currently include less information, and are arguably more redundant of other sources; the individual subdivisions by league which have been added to the fielding lists are useful (and factual), as are the notes on the holders of various records over the years. Anyone looking for this info could, I suppose, wade through the data on other sites to find it themselves, but why make that necessary? There used to be annual publications which included the current league records, but I'm not sure any are still being printed, so that info isn't even easy to find anymore; I can't find career single-league records on Baseball-Reference, let alone single-league leaders, so I'm not sure where they'd be available. I don't think there's a WP:SYNTH issue, because no conclusions or inferences are being drawn -it's all simply factual material. MisfitToys (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MisfitToys: None of that proves compliance with WP:NLIST, nor does it rebut the thorough source analysis set forth in the nomination, and I also see multiple arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Can you please justify your keep !vote by providing independent secondary reliable sources that directly discuss this list topic as a group to show notability? Left guide (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State Karate Association of Bihar

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

This is a contested draftification. The subject fails the notability guideline for organizations. The sources in the article have only passing mentions of the subject, if that, and no significant coverage. A quick search for more turned up no other useable sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem wiki notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see significant independent coverage of the organization. Running tournaments is what karate organizations do and the other articles are about individual child competitors. Even if they're notable, an open question, the organization doesn't inherit notability from them. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural relations

[edit]
Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural 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 is largely WP:OR and created by a now indef blocked user that had a history of using revisionist/negationist citations and misusing citations. Lacks WP:RS, unreliable sources include other Wiki projects and links that don't work. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't know how you came to this conclusion. There are entire books dedicated to this topic (e.g. [1][2][3][4]) and papers in academic journals ([5][6][7][8][9][10]), etc. C F A 💬 03:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk what's your point with these sources that have no page numbers. If you read the actual article text, most of this article is unverifibale, and the rest is very obscurely sourced synthesis or just original research. AntEgo (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after considering this discussion. The basis of this deletion nomination is the lack of RS but there are over 80 references here. A source analysis to actually review all of these sources and see if they are "unreliable" would be helpful. As other Delete positions are either per nom or weak on polcy reasoning, I think further consideration is due.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep for the best out of pretty bad options - article creator is irrelevant if the subject is notable. If it's in a poor state then perhaps it needs fixing. As it's between the nations of Armenia and Azerbijan and not the countries, it shouldn't be merged into Azerbaijan–Armenia relations, if it were draftified it would probably get removed after 6 months because the article creator was blocked. Article has enough content to justify an article and is notable, but verifying the content because of the article creation is difficult.
Therefore I don't think deleting it helps the project. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid-Lindgren-Preis

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

No sources and no apparent notability from web search. Note that the current Swedish award has an article and is widely reported on, but the defunct German one has no media coverage. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Owen× ☎ 23:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yong-il (footballer)

[edit]
Kim Yong-il (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yong-gwang

[edit]
Kim Yong-gwang (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 fails WP:GNG. Match reports are WP:ROUTINE. Simione001 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahad Wasuge

[edit]
Mahad Wasuge (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)

BLP of a researcher who does not appear to pass WP:NPROF and is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parappukkavu Bhagavathy Temple

[edit]
Parappukkavu Bhagavathy Temple (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 temple, poorly sourced, so that it is not clear whether the place meets our notability standard or not. There may be better sources in Malayalam so hopefully editors with a reading knowledge of that language can weigh in. Mccapra (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable-source WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 2 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 Naldanga Upazila. as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhottopara

[edit]
Bhottopara (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)

Disputed draftification. WP:GNG failure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naldanga Upazila where I've added it to an incomplete list of villages. It's not really clear what locale is being referenced in the second source, since Basudebpur Union (which is still in Rajshahi District) doesn't mention it in their list of villages. Madhnagar union does include it so if/when a Madhnagar union page is created it can be listed and redirected there. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Song-sun

[edit]
Kim Song-sun (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Kajiwara

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

WP:GNG would seem to suggest that this dancer is not a valid subject for an article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Levesque

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

No indication of significance. References are PR, profiles, appointment news and non-salient coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. UPE. scope_creepTalk 22:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. "Transportation 2023: Peter Levesque". Virginia Business. 2023-08-30. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.

      The article notes: "Levesque was previously president of Ports America and spent 25 years based in Hong Kong. He has held executive positions at international transportation, logistics and supply chain companies such as Modern Terminals, CEVA Logistics and DHL. ... A graduate of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Northwestern University and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Levesque authored “The Shipping Point: The Rise of China and the Future of Retail Supply Chain Management” in 2011, and the 2022 thriller “Two if By Sea,”"

    2. Kwang, Mary (2002-05-15). "What Singapore has done, HK can do too". The Straits Times.

      The article notes: "Singapore has done a remarkable job of marketing itself as the logistics hub of Asia, and where Singapore has succeeded, Hongkong could succeed too, according to a logistics industry consultant. Mr Peter Levesque, who runs his own consultancy firm and who used to work for container transportation company, American President Lines, said that the Republic 'has its running shoes on and for quite some time in an attempt to outrun Hongkong'. ... He lauded Singapore for its focused marketing efforts, open-skies policy, world-class port, logistics education and positioning as a hub for high-value, fast-moving goods. He described the tie-up between the National University of Singapore and the Georgia Institute of Technology, renowned for logistics studies, to offer courses in the field as a strategic fit."

    3. Labrut, Michele (2019-11-26). "Ports America appoints Peter Levesque as president". Seatrade Maritime News. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.

      The article notes: "Levesque will join Ports America in February 2020 and will report to Mark Montgomery, who will continue in the role of chief executive officer. Levesque joins Ports America from Modern Terminals Limited (MTL) in Hong Kong, where he most recently held the post of group managing director and ceo. He brings more than 30 years of maritime industry experience. During his nine-year tenure with Modern Terminals, Levesque led the company through a successful Public-Private-Partnership in Hong Kong."

    4. "Levesque leaves Hong Kong for Jersey". The Journal of Commerce. Vol. 20, no. 25. 2019-12-09. p. 8. EBSCOhost 140436136.

      The article notes: "Ports America has chosen 30-year shipping industry veteran Peter Levesque as its new president, returning Levesque to the United States from Hong Kong, where he was CEO of Modern Terminals Ltd. Levesque, who has led Modern Terminals since 2016 and spent nine years at the company, will join Ports America in February. "

    5. Knowler, Greg (2016-08-02). "Levesque to succeed Kelly as head of Modern Terminals". The Journal of Commerce. EBSCOhost 117205752.

      The article notes: "Modern Terminals' Chief Operating Officer Peter Levesque will succeed Sean Kelly as managing director of the Hong Kong-based terminal operator from Jan. 1, 2017. ... Levesque is a veteran of the transport and logistics industry. He has been with Modern Terminals since February 2010, and has served as chief commercial officer and chief operating officer. Prior to Modern Terminals, he held executive positions at DHL, CEVA Logistics, and American President Lines."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Peter Levesque to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lets examine these references as Cunard hasn't a particularly good success rate at finding sources for these types of articles:
  • Ref 1 [15] This is profile with no byline. Its non-rs. Its is likely written by Levesque himself.
  • Ref 2 This is 317 word article. It is NOT in-depth secondary coverage.
  • Ref 3 [16] This routine annoucement of employment comes from a press-release and is not considered a WP:SECONDARY source for WP:BLP. It is non-rs in fact.
  • Ref 4 This is the same press-release. Another routine annoucement of employement. It is non-rs.
  • Ref 5 This is the same press-release. Another routine annoucement of employement. It is non-rs.
None of these constitute WP:SECONDARY sources. I'm a bit peeved that press-releases have been presented as secondary sourcing when long established consensus has proven they are not. So far no WP:THREE secondary sources have been supplied to prove this person is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source was not written by Levesque himself. It was written by the publication. Here is the methodology from the Virginia Business editor:

    For those who aren’t familiar with the Virginia 500, we like to say that it’s like the Fortune 500 but instead of companies, it’s about people — specifically, the most powerful Virginia executives and officials in business, nonprofits, higher education, government and politics. The list is based on our staff research, not nominations, and we do not rank executives.

    ...

    Another important point: The Virginia 500 is journalism, not public relations or advertising. Our editors choose which organizations and leaders make the list and what we say about them. The Virginia 500 is not an award or an endorsement; it’s simply a recognition that a person holds a position of power and influence. Though most executives appreciate being named to the Virginia 500, a small number sometimes wish not to be included. There isn’t an opt-out process, however.

    The second source reports on the subject's speech. The other sources provide biographical background about him in the context of the business roles he assumes. The coverage in all the sources is sufficient for him to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The virginia busines reads looks and reads like a profile with fundamental information that couldn't be know without contacting him or using other press-release type information to build that profile. That combined with paid-for images makes it look like PR. Its the classic who's who or bloomberg type of profile. The 2nd isn't in-depth and the press-releases by long consensus are non-rs. You can't bypass it and tack and assume its good. Its not. scope_creepTalk 10:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fundamental information that couldn't be know without contacting him or using other press-release type information" could be said without evidence about most news articles in reliable sources that profile living people. Backed by the statement from the publication's editor, I see no evidence that this source is not independent. The second source is a 299-word article which is significant coverage. The other sources are not press releases; they are news articles from publications that report on the shipping industry. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are from press-releases. Nobody reports on a routine annoucement of a job unless it comes from a press-release. You just don't want to do the work to find the press-release. Here is the press-release statement
"“I am thrilled to have Peter be part of our leadership team of the Ports America platform. Ports America remains focused on providing best-in-class service to many of the world’s leading shipping lines as well as the work we have completed in improving workflow solutions to beneficial cargo owners to drive dramatic growth for the company,” said Ports America ceo Mark Montgomery".
That is not independent and non-rs.
The subject listing is similar to the X of Y articles that lists basic information and are no more that constructs used to provide awareness in job hunting and lately to build a fake notability, similar to bloomberg and who's who. It is no more than a profile, is not in-depth nor independent. The man is not notable. It worries me you break established consensus around reliabilty/independence just to prove a point. I'm kind of worried that you don't know that press-releases are non-rs. I hope your not handing out that advice for editors looking for sources. scope_creepTalk 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is from Labrut 2019 in which the author quotes Dave Starling, the chairman of the company board. The rest of the article provides biographical coverage about Peter J. Levesque in the journalist's own words. There is enough independent, non-interview coverage in all the sources for Peter J. Levesque to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Cunard (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It a press-release. That is why those three references all magically report the subject has a got a new job. scope_creepTalk 08:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Knowler 2016, Labrut 2019, and Journal 2019: One of the sources was published in 2016. Two of the sources were published in 2019. While the sources are prompted by company's announcements, there is enough independent reporting and non-press-release coverage in the sources to contribute to notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria alongside the other two sources. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 2 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Dangeard

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are WP:SPS sources, profiles, PR. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 21:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura M. Brotherson

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

lacks notability. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dum TV Kannada

[edit]
Dum TV Kannada (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)

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted here. A possible redirect target would be Dangal (TV channel) as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr10 Rangeela

[edit]
Enterr10 Rangeela (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)

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted here. A possible redirect target would be Dangal (TV channel) as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr10 Bangla

[edit]
Enterr10 Bangla (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)

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted here. A possible redirect target would be Dangal (TV channel) as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dangal 2

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

References are brief mentions or routine announcements. Parent page was soft deleted here. The only channel in this group that is possibly notable would be Dangal (TV channel) where I would recommend redirecting as an WP:ATD. Note that you will find a few in-depth sources but they are talking about the main Dangal channel, not Dangal 2. CNMall41 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Been So Long

[edit]
It's Been So Long (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. While the song has a lot of results most of not all are false positives Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pylas

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

Not sure this meets GNG — limited coverage in secondary sources. Cremastra (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. May not be the last word on this article, but currently we have a rough consensus to keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kfir Tsafrir

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

I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails our general notability guideline as well as our our subject-specific guideline Monophile (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article does not qualify for a speedy keep. Please focus on source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It seems that he meets WP:NSINGER criterion 2, having a single listed on a country's national music chart. I've plugged the relevant source into Google Translate here: [18]. Kardashian was not the only one to recognize the phenomenon. "Fear of God" is in first place in various charts, including Hitlist - Israel 's official music chart, for the third week in a row. This seems pretty clear cut. Toadspike [Talk] 21:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 5 is basically an interview and is very brief, 6 appears to be a streaming site and 7 is okay-ish... I don't see enough extensive coverage. I'm unsure about sources 1-4. I can only find this [19], more about the TV show then this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. it lacks significant, extensive coverage of the person, making it difficult to assess their notability Old-AgedKid (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Longhornsg and Toadspike. Andre🚐 23:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thus far, somewhat of a one-hit wonder. Yet, as User:Toadspike points out, Tsafrir satisfies NSINGER #2. Being very accessible does not help with the independence of the sources. That said, a good article can be pieced together from available sources and, in fact, has been created. gidonb (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Vieira

[edit]
Vitor Vieira (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 does not meet WP:GNG. Search did no result in any significant secondary coverage. Demt1298 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Macliver

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2020. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monophile Which of the sources are both independent and have significant coverage? What am I missing here? I am not seeing even one source that is both independent and has in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1234567 [https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/aria-celebrates-fine-arts-1404980/amp/ Billboard charts89 Monophile (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
"Directory Search Results". directory.uwa.edu.au. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Question? Red XN Broken url, but its a directory listing with no attributed author. Unclear if it is a secondary source of information. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ryan, Gavin (2011). Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010 (PDF ed.). Mt Martha, Victoria, Australia: Moonlight Publishing. p. 173. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Brief mention in a table. No in-depth coverage or discussion. Fails WP:SIGCOV
"ARIA Awards – Winners by Award". Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA). Retrieved 12 November 2018. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A primary source, so can not be used to prove notability as it is not secondary. Fails WP:SIGCOV
Sara Macliver website Green tickY Question? Red XN Question? Red XN Not actually a website of the subject. Bach cantatas is a website anyone can edit, including the subject, just like wikipedia. Not reliable.
*Naxos website Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Lacks independence from the subject as it is her record label. Fails WP:SIGCOV
Post Newspapers interview Green tickY Red XN Question? Green tickY Red XN Interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources because they typically don't involve fact checking and lack independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ballroom and social dance albums

[edit]
List of ballroom and social dance albums (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)

Pointless, neglected unreferenced list of redlinks --Altenmann >talk 15:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ciarán O'Toole

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:PRO on a BLP. UPE. scope_creepTalk 20:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swagger Sharma

[edit]
Swagger Sharma (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 youtuber. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of Sharma, and web searches reveal nothing that contributes to WP:GNG, just social media profiles, interviews, and paid-for advertorials. I don't think his work is significant enough for him to pass WP:NACTOR, either. Wham2001 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual representations of Turing machines

[edit]
Visual representations of Turing machines (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 GNG. The article is currently an amalgamation of primary sources and non-notable pictures. The only secondary sources are those that discuss Turing himself; this material is already discussed in the main Turing machine article, which also contains pictures of physical implementations. The primary sources are not important enough to merge into the main article. My PROD was previously removed. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rushnychok Ukrainian Folk Dance Association

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

I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to meet WP:GNG (much less WP:NORG, which this subject must meet). Sources in the article are all either affiliated or primary sources, and the only source I came up with in my WP:BEFORE are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Grundik+Slava as an acceptable ATD, without prejudice against selective merger. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slava Smelovsky

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

WP:BLP with zero real coverage. Refs are profiles, other work and oddments. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 17:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PG 1543+489

[edit]
PG 1543+489 (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)

Quasar that fails WP:NASTRO as an object with no independent coverage discovered after 1850. Article is also impossible to read, this equation being in the first paragraph; " <Γ2-12 keV > = 1.89±0.1". These equations are all over the article. SirMemeGod  16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRDB Bank DR Congo

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Brand new org. scope_creepTalk 15:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Consensus is against deletion, but indicates that this may be worth a subsequent merge discussion. asilvering (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh Cricket Club

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

I believe the article fails notability. The article cites only a single non-independent source. A search has revealed only non-significant coverage in reference to games or the grounds and such (with the possible exception of this book page I found).
It was previously proposed for deletion in 2011, with the result being a weak keep with the expectation that user:Brocach would try to add sources. It had been more than a decade and the article has not been improved. Lenny Marks (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Update: It seems @Guliolopez has been able to find some more sources. I have not been able to review yet weather they constitute significant coverage, but at a glance they seem to be either incidental or non-independent. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Personally I can't support deletion. As noted above, I found and have added a number of sources which allow for the article to be expanded beyond a stub. And, in at least some cases, appear to support a claim to notability. While some of the more in-depth sources available appear to be connected to the subject (including at least one if not both of the "anniversary/history" pieces by Weir (2009) and Duffy (1984)), others seem more independent of the subject. Including the (granted somewhat "local interest") news stories and history coverage in Armagh Today, the Ulster Gazette, and the journal of the Armagh History Group. While I'm not exactly bowled over by these sources (hence the "weak keep" recommendation), outright deletion wouldn't seem appropriate at all. As, even if there was consensus that the org wasn't sufficiently notable for a standalone title, the title could be redirected (and the related content easily merged) to The Mall, Armagh or Armagh#Sport or NCU Senior League or any number of other titles. Personally I think, on balance, that this subject can just about sustain its own title however. Certainly can't support outright deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your point about the ability to expand the article, I am still troubled by the other thing we both seemed to have noticed which is that the only ones that seem to constitute significant coverage are non-independent. It is my understanding of the notability policy that just because sources with information (even a lot of information) exist on a topic, it does not mean that a topic qualifies for a standalone article. Reliable sources must be independent to count towards the test and I just don't see this club as notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. If you want to maintain some of the article's content or expand from those sources, my feeling would be that your suggestion to merge some of the content is the best way to do it but, as it stands, I think the club simply does not satisfy notability. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, if there is consensus that the topic doesn't warrant a standalone article then, at the very least, the content should be merged and title retained as a redirect. Perhaps to The Mall, Armagh#Club cricket. Which would be a reasonable/appropriate target. In keeping with WP:ATD-R. Guliolopez (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been heavily edited since its nomination. Please assess changes to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to NGC 3862. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 2955

[edit]
IC 2955 (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:NASTRO, no individual coverage. Object also first observed after 1850. SirMemeGod  15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for this Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NGC 3862. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of IC objects. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3078

[edit]
IC 3078 (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 notability, all searches led me to a vast list of astronomical objects. Fails WP:NASTRO for this reason. SirMemeGod  15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirect target articles being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cutting (automobile) as a natural ATD, without prejudice against merging relevant content. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LCE (automobile)

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

Unable to find any sources supplying notability. Most sources I've found that even mention it, mention it trivially. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 15:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about adding it to the Cutting page since it's a successor company? It is relevant in Brass Era automobile discussions.
Human-potato hybrid (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the content into the Cutting article, where it is most relevant. The content is encyclopedic even if it does not deserve its own article. It would fit as a section in that article.
Human-potato hybrid (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Human-potato hybrid,
What you are describing is what on AFDs we would consider a vote to Merge and then you would identify the target article for this article to be merged into. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks. This article.
https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Cutting_(automobile) Human-potato hybrid (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connecteam

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Connecteam (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 first AfD was... somewhat disrupted, but the rationale is substantially the same as that one, I just kinda forgot to renominate after the DRV (oops). In my judgement, there is no way in hell the subject in question meets ORGCRIT, whether in english or non-english sources, and nothing I've seen since the aforementioned discussions move the needle in the slightest. Here's hoping if anyone brings up new sources that they're at least vaguely plausible in therms of meeting WP:SIRS? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The first sources mentioned above are routine coverage per WP:ORGTRIV as they are routine coverage of raised capital, precisely the type of coverage that does not contribute to notability. Notability requires significant coverage in independent sources, and with the second set of sources, the first, second, and fourth sources mentioned are interviews with the CEO who is discussing the company and therefore non-independent of the article's subject. If this last source isn't churnalism (which given the lack of author and nature of the content is not a given) then it is a lone source, and WP:GNG and WP:NORG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:SIRS), not a lone source of unclear reliablility that contains content indistinguishable from churnalism. - Aoidh (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per Aoidh.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it does seem that all the sources are WP:ROUTINE such as fundraising announcements and pressers. If there are in-depth sources I'll change my view. Andre🚐 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn; speedy keep‎. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Azeryol HC

[edit]
Azeryol HC (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)

Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources -- all I'm finding is coverage on the European Handball Federation site, which is not independent. Open to withdrawing this nomination if anyone can turn up qualifying SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT -- perhaps I missed coverage in Azeri. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Owen× ☎ 17:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiyan Stoyanov

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

Can't find any non-WP:INTERVIEW WP:SIGCOV in either Bulgarian or English of this Bulgarian football player and thus can't find a pass of WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. (Note, there is a Bulgarian track and field athlete of a similar first name, "Християн" vs "Кристиян," and an identical surname who comes up in searches.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 17:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obie Oberholzer

[edit]
Obie Oberholzer (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)

Insufficient references to establish notability. -- Beland (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The nomination was withdrawn, and a consensus was also established. (non-admin closure) - The9Man Talk 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governor's Victory Bell

[edit]
Governor's Victory Bell (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 was previously deleted under a different title. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry (2nd nomination)) with near-unanimous support. Article was re-created by the lone keep supporter. The fact that the article is now written with a focus on a trophy does not change the fact that it is a non-notable series or trophy. The coverage provided is inadequate. Sources generally are WP:ROUTINE coverage with a passing mention of the trophy, or basically say that it exists but do not explain any significance of the trophy. The ones with more than a passing mention explain why the trophy is not significant. Frank Anchor 15:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn based on opinions of Alvaldi and Let’srun and my further review of the sources presented by PK-WIKI. I will not close this discussion due to a still-standing delete vote. Any closing admin can consider me to be neutral. Frank Anchor 17:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as coverage from The Washington Post, which said "Perhaps the spirit of the college football rivalry trophy was best captured earlier this season" by Minnesota reclaiming the Governor's Victory Bell. The New York Times featured it in their article on a rising trend in College Football in which "the trophies precede the rivalries" and "other so-called rivalries that pop up after realignment". CBS Sports used the trophy to justify inclusion of PSU-UMN in their list of 21 Big Ten rivalries. The Associated Press featured it prominently as one of the top "forced rivalries" in the Big Ten and included it as one of the "17 trophy games recognized by the conference".
Beyond its inclusion in trophy/rivalry roundup articles by top-tier national sources, the trophy also has non-routine significant coverage over 30+ years by reliable, independent regional newspapers:
None of the above sources are WP:ROUTINE; they all go in-depth on the history and significance of the trophy. They are not "routine news coverage", "planned coverage of scheduled events", or "routine events such as sports matches" but rather entire articles, sections, or columns written about the trophy itself. WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That the trophy columns share some space with coverage of that season's game is immaterial and expected.
I agree that you could say articles like this are routine coverage of the trophy being awarded, but the four sources above are significant coverage of the trophy that together meet GNG.
GNG requires "significant coverage" of the subject, but does not at all say that the subject must be significant. Thus the statement in the nomination that "The ones with more than a passing mention explain why the trophy is not significant." should be ignored. Reliable coverage of this trophy indicates it is significant for its non-significance.
Regardless, reliable sources do assign the trophy four components of non-routine "significance":
  • Commemorates Penn State's entrance into the Big Ten, a watershed moment for both their program and the conference.
  • Pushes Minnesota up into 4 official rivalry trophies, the most in the Big Ten, a conference famous for their rivalry trophies.
  • It being "weird" that Penn State plays for two rather unmeaningful trophies in the trophy-crazy Big Ten.
  • Frequently listed as a "forgettable" trophy, created and awarded but without much real meaning, indicative of the wider backdrop of a regional and rivalry-based sport losing those qualities to big money and conference realignment.
PK-WIKI (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above listed sources most certainly DO NOT go into the history or significance of the trophy. The first two basically explain the trophy exists and explain that many people connected with the two universities do not know about its existance, arguing the subject trophy is not notable Red XN Red XN. The third explains that the trophy was made to commemorate Penn State's first game in the Big Ten. That's a nice nugget of information on 1993 Penn State Nittany Lions football team, but certainly does not warrant an article on the trophy.Red XN The last is a simple mention of the trophy's existence among many other rivalry trophys for both schools, this is absolutely a routine mention.Red XN Further, per WP:N, The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability (emphasis mine). The significant attention from independent sources, if anything, appears to refute the claim of notability of this trophy. Frank Anchor 20:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I cited four different reliable, independent third-party sources from 1993, 1997, and 2016. All four of the stories provide significant coverage of the trophy.
    One calls it "a tradition that has withstood the test of time" and "a hallowed trophy, a symbol of what makes college football players get on the field and give it everything the've got".
    All four citations DO go into the history and significance of the trophy. That it was created to mark Penn State's entrance into the Big Ten. That it tallies as Minnesota's 4th rivalry trophy, the most in the Big Ten. That newcomer Penn State's trophies are widely considered less prestigious than the rest of the Big Ten's. That trophies and rivalries are now being unnaturally created. The Governor's Victory Bell is significant because of those reasons.
    That people quoted in the stories don't think it's a great trophy is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Their opinion has no bearing on the trophy's notability. The stories themselves written by reliable third-party sources about the trophy are the significant coverage. The trophy does not need to be considered "significant" in comparison to other trophies. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign. asilvering (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Castle

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage, interviews, profiles, election news. No indication of signficance. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As a presidential nominee, Castle did better than any other Constitution Party candidate in both of his runs, winning nearly 200k votes each time. He was endorsed by Glenn Beck in 2016 and got some meaningful coverage [24][25][26][27]
As a lawyer, he founded Darrell Castle & Associates and has been interviewed by the New York Times earlier this year relating to the sale of Graceland. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources in this discussion and in article. If not kept, all content should be merged to Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign.--User:Namiba 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKS 0805-07

[edit]
PKS 0805-07 (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:NASTRO, no independent coverage. SirMemeGod  13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vengamamba Perantalu

[edit]
Sri Vengamamba Perantalu (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 sign of notability beyond existing on a list. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swarnala Cheruvu Nellore

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

Only cite does not mention the name of the thing in question. No sign it satisfies WP:NPLACE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator account User:Vijay bhaskara reddy k was blocked seven hours ago, but if that's the master then this article is ineligible for G5. The SPI notes that it probably isn't the master, so best to wait and see which account is, and then it can be speedied. Wikishovel (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even if that source by The Hindu mentioned it, it would not satisfy the general notability guideline, which requires 3 sources. Tavantius (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that this article is eligible for CSD G5. This criteria is not for being a sockpuppet alone, it is for sockpuppets of block-evading editors and, as far as I can see from the SPI, there was no block evasion occurring when this article was created. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 2 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 Baalveer. There's a rough consensus not to keep this as a standalone article, and broad support for redirect as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vansh Sayani

[edit]
Vansh Sayani (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)

Child actor with a major role for one season of Baalveer Returns, but otherwise appears to be cameo's and minor roles. Source coverage outside of the primary sources and interviews is short / passing mentions and some publicity puff pieces. Many of the sources are this person's Facebook / Instagram account which does not help show notability. Article should return to being a Redirect to Baalveer. Ravensfire (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The actor is notable for playing major roles in two shows and recurring role in a movie. Instead of redirecting or deleting the page, it must be improved by adding reliable sources.

--000099999AB 03:06, 26 September 2024

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. Consensus established; also, the nomination was the nominator's third edit ever. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Ajit George

[edit]
Ajit George (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 biographical article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckAdam (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed formatting to follow WP:AFDHOWTO. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC); notified article creators along with WikiProjects (WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons & WikiProject Role-playing games). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon (blockchain)

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

Doesn't quite come close to the generally accepted in-depth, reliable, independent, secondary sources required to satisfy WP:ORG plus I believe WP sets the bar a little higher for crypto companies does it not?

Please see below for the source assessment table

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://github.com/maticnetwork/whitepaper No White paper written by the company ~ There may be some element of informal peer review ~ In-depth? Maybe but because it's a white paper it is not independent ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210209221131/https://polygon.technology/lightpaper-polygon.pdf No Company website No Not subject to editorial oversight Yes Plenty of depth but obviously not independent ✘ No
https://www.livemint.com/companies/people/meet-india-s-first-crypto-billionaires-11622112486971.html ~ The publication appears independent and reliable but the majority of the article consists of an interview with the founders with little to no editorial oversight and interviews are primary sources ~ Just how reliable can an interview with the organisation's founders published in a local newspaper be? Yes Interview aside there is some depth of coverage here. ~ Partial
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-09/crypto-firm-polygon-makes-500-million-buy-for-ethereum-push ~ Routine coverage possibly based on a press release Yes RSP says that Bloomberg is reliable for business coverage although I have noticed some churnalism in its output. ? Hard to say as the article is paywalled ? Unknown
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/polygons-value-grows-as-its-apps-grow-in-usefulness-and-popularity No Company profile on NASDAQ ~ If it's just being used to verify the ticker symbol then yes this is reliable Yes Some depth of coverage present ✘ No
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/polygon-matic-reveals-hacked-earlier-103532665.html No Yahoo finance is different to Yahoo News and the content appears to be aggregated from a source for which there is no consensus on reliability No No consensus on FXEmpire's reliability Yes Yes, there's depth but it reads like a press release ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/markets/funds/polygon-raises-450-mln-sequoia-capital-india-softbank-vision-fund-2-others-2022-02-07/ ~ Source is independent but the nature of the content is just a routine funding announcement ? Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable. - WP:RSP ~ It does just look like a press release about a routine funding announcement ? Unknown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-02/jpmorgan-executes-its-first-defi-trade-using-public-blockchain Yes Appears to be written independently Yes RSP says that Bloomberg is reliable ~ The article appears to focus on JPMorgan's adoption of the blockchain and not the blockchain itself ~ Partial
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitchellmartin/2022/12/15/trump-nfts-offer-adoring-45000-views-of-former-president/ Yes Appears to be written by a former staff member but curiously the only mention of Polygon is at the top of the page. Did they perhaps sponsor this article? Some clarity is needed here. ~ Former Forbes staff so maybe No This doesn't seem to be about the company ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/15/trump-mocked-superhero-digital-card-collection Yes Definitely independent Yes Publication has a good track record No Doesn't mention the subject ✘ No
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/04/polygon-blockchain-draftkings-partnership Yes Most likely independent Yes Reliable per the consensus at RSP ~ Focuses on one event but not the organisation as a whole ~ Partial
https://venturebeat.com/games/alethea-ai-debuts-generative-ai-on-polygon-blockhain/ ~ Appears to be closely aligned with a routine press release/announcement Yes Reliable per the consensus as WP:RSP No It's just a few sentences and appears to be a routine press announcement ✘ No
https://fortune.com/crypto/2023/02/25/what-is-polygon-ethereum-layer-2-starbucks-mastercards/ ? Can't see the whole article because it's paywalled ? To the best of my knowledge a consensus on Fortune's reliability has yet to be reached ? Can't see the whole article because it's paywalled ? Unknown
https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/09/2648953/ No TechCrunch isn't independent No Reliable for some things but not notability No Routine press announcement ✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/14/blockchain-tech-could-be-the-answer-to-uncovering-deepfakes-and-validating-content/ No TechCrunch again No Reliable for some things but not notability No Routine press announcemet based on an interview ✘ No
https://time.com/collection/time100-companies-2023/6285165/polygon-labs/ ? Hard to say with these listicles. Perhaps it's a little independent but not entirely ~ ime's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. - WP:RSP No Theres a few lines there but nothing appraoching WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/01/tether-had-record-breaking-net-profits-in-q4-polygon-labs-does-layoffs-and-hackers-steal-112m-of-xrp/ No TechCrunch again No I don't think WPs consensus has changed as far as I am aware No General news article ✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/01/polygon-labs-lays-off-60-employees-about-19-of-its-staff-ceo-says/ Yes Appears to be published relatively independently No For some things maybe. For verifying notability, no. ~ Perhaps but it does seem like a routine press announcement ✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/09/17/4-trillion-reasons-blackrock-changed-its-mind-on-digital-assets/? ~ Former staff writer so it's anybody's guess ~ Perhaps, the line between staff writer and contributer appears blurry here No As far as I can tell it doesn't mention Polygon directly ✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/cryptocurrency/story/firozabad-police-to-use-polygon-blockchain-to-register-complain-2284524-2022-10-12 ~ One can't be sure with local news articles Yes India Today is reliable, I think. No Appears to be a routine press announcement ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Signal Crayfish (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclaimer: I don't own any MATIC and don't claim to be an expert on the blockchain/currency. However, its utility and billion-dollar market cap does appear to warrant an article (imo), but I think more points of view should be given before deletion is considered. Electricmaster (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Have WP's editors reached a consensus on the WP:UNICORNNOTABILITY policy yet?Signal Crayfish (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sagra

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kevin Sagra (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 in independent, reliable sources (he is affiliated with GMA Network). No major roles to meet WP:NACTOR (mostly "guest" roles according to the article). C F A 💬 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of performance analysis tools. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GlowCode

[edit]
GlowCode (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)

Follow-up from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Software, Inc.. This was deemed an unsuitable redirect target due to notability concerns. IgelRM (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea McGinty

[edit]
Andrea McGinty (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: Non-notable dating expert and entrepreneur. Other than sponsored media, there is no direct coverage about her. There is a lot of coverage about It’s Just Lunch but on such coverage WP:INHERIT applies. Gheus (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is notable per WP:GNG NY times, Chicago tribune, CSBNews are reliable independent sources on the subject Tesleemah (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No support for the nomination. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mangham

[edit]
Andrew Mangham (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)

Part of a walled garden revolving around “empathism”. No credible evidence of notability. Conveniently, Mangham is cited in the article on Menotti Lerro, the guru of empathism, calling him “one of the most interesting poets in modern-day Europe”. Of course, this opinion just happens to appear in the introduction to a volume of poetry by Lerro, who just happens to be friends with Mangham. See how these things work? Biruitorul Talk 11:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Zenga

[edit]
Maurizio Zenga (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)

Part of a walled garden revolving around “empathism”. No credible evidence of notability. Biruitorul Talk 10:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Insufficient sources that are fully independent, secondary and in-depth. I can find a few press-releases online and a few things he wrote, but no indepth coverage of him and his work. The current sourcing is 1) Something he wrote about himself in a daily newspaper (non-independent, primary) "Maurizio Zenga talks about his experience...."; 2) List of "followers" or "adherents" to Menotti Lerro's so-called movement/manifesto Empathism - non-independent, primary source written by Lerro, that name checks Zenga as a signatory; 3) PR "preview" press release for a forthcoming event (public relations/press release). This article and many others created by a COI single-purpose account on numerous non-notable "followers" of Lerro's Empathism - it's WP:PROMO. The subject does not meet notability criteria for WP:NACADEMIC - Google scholar h-index score of zero, nothing on Scopus. Fails WP:NARCHITECT and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Netherzone. Axad12 (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While an article created as part of a cluster could in principle meet our standards, this one doesn't. XOR'easter (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I do not find the significant coverage of the article. can be removed. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:09, 2 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 11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Blue

[edit]
Vote Blue (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. Not meeting WP:ORG. - The9Man Talk 10:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mašićka Šagovina killings

[edit]
Mašićka Šagovina killings (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 entire article is based on claims of Savo Štrbac ('Veritas') published in the Serbian newspaper Politika. Neither of these are particular pillars of objectivity, which is documented already.

It seems plausible that something like what is described in the article happened, and it also seems plausible that a few people lied or embellished the truth to a few favorably inclined reporters and got them to publish something that sells well in their target market.

The only other citations are to Večernji list, which may well be slanted in the other direction. There's one link to a 1992 article in The Baltimore Sun which I can't access.

So there doesn't seem to be coherent independent confirmation for this narrative from conventionally reliable sources - I couldn't find it in the archive of the Serb National Council which documents a lot of these kinds of killings. I searched the ICTY website, and this place was only mentioned in seemingly unrelated witness transcripts. Balkan Insight has a couple of stories about exhumations in 2013 and 2016 in the area, but makes no claims of massacres. I also checked the Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past website, and other Croatian websites, and there's just basically nothing, other than war stories from veterans. Usually there should be at least something, even if the information was being suppressed by interested parties.

We shouldn't be parroting such serious claims until there's at least some verification. It doesn't actually do justice to the memory of any people unlawfully killed there to post arbitrary unverifiable stuff about it.

Can anyone else find anything, or do we delete this? --Joy (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Baltimore Sun link works just fine. It mentions a massacre in this village at the same time with most of the same details. So probably was a thing that happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would be great if you could paste some of the exact phrasing used. Dusko Doder's biography says he was in Belgrade in the 1990s, and let's just say that July 1992 in Belgrade was not a great time and place to get information about what's happening with Serbs in Croatia in December 1991. --Joy (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access the Baltimore Sun article. Doder and Louise Branson are both accomplished Western-based journalists and authors, so the credibility as far as reporting should be sufficient. The beginning of the article describes the Ahatovići massacre of Bosniaks, and other reported atrocities. The passage regarding this topic is as follows:

One massacre of the Croatian war was reported by a Serb woman, Nevenka Despotovic from the village of Marsicka Sagovina near Nova Gradiska. Her foot was blown away by a hand-grenade thrown into the basement by Croat forces surrounding a home in which she and several others were hiding in a basement. Everyone else in the basement was machine-gunned to death as she watched. Those who surrendered, including her brother, were taken away and killed.

There's no doubt that Štrbac is a biased source but at the same time, I don't believe he or Veritas are in the business of engaging in hoaxes, but good-faith attempts to seek justice for civilians affected by war crimes. Serbian sources might be biased so I agree their reporting should be carefully examined but imo, it's not any more biased than Croatian sources who might be inclined to suppress/ignore war crimes from their side. The information is based on first-hand eye witnesses, with their full names, and the Veritas and Politika reporting corroborate the Baltimore Sun report. Croatian sources speak of "major losses" from the Serbian side during the "action in Masicka Sagovina" and it is entirely plausible civilians were victims of crimes. Although, I agree it is strange that there isn't any more information about this beyond these sources. I also haven't been able to find any other sources discussing this. Having said that, I also disagree with the argument that because something isn't widely covered, it means it didn't happen. A lot of war crimes go unreported or aren't publicized as much and remain unresolved. --Griboski (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's plausible, but it doesn't make sense that none of this ever reached even a humanitarian organization beyond Veritas. I find it weird that the 2019 article from Veritas says:
Tom prilikom su, prema srpskim izvorima, likvidirali najmanje 55 ljudi, među kojima 31 civila i pripadnika TO iz ovog sela.
So this person is referencing "sources" - not necessarily saying someone specifically told them that, it could have just been that they read about it.
... grupa od dvdesetak civila sklonila se u podrum Rajka Stojičevića, među kojima su bile i meštanke 29-godišnja Mara Mioković i 14-godišnja Milica Vrljanović, koje su preživele ovaj masakr i po izlasku iz zarobljeništva, pred saradnicima Srpskog sabora, još u toku ratnih godina, ostavili pisana svedočanstva o zločinu u Mašićkoj Šagovini.
Who are these "associates of Srpski sabor"? What is this organization? This is likewise said to be a written testimony from the war years.
Na drugom kraju sela, po svedočenju meštanina Jovice Milosavljevića (25), datom po izlasku iz zarobljeništva u maju 1992. u Crvenom krstu u Beogradu, ...
So that person said that in May 1992 in a Red Cross in Belgrade after being released from captivity. This was some sort of a prisoner exchange? How would this story be more reliable than any other story told by a veteran?
Anyway, if nobody in the last thirty years went through the effort of verifying these claims, even including Veritas who appear to just be collating '90s era sources, Wikipedia is just not the place to make our readers do that. --Joy (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW in 2022, an anonymous user noted this in the military operation article - [35]. That kind of a sentence is about the amount of coverage we can realistically have on this unless a better source comes up. --Joy (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Baltimore Sun link is online and working and Politika is RS in most cases. Keep and close. — Sadko (words are wind) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the level of useless contribution that had caused your earlier topic ban in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive283#Sadko. --Joy (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crimes like this are widely covered, not only by media reports when they occur but also by humanitarian organizations, war crime tribunals, books, etc long after the fact. In contrast, this event is largely absent, except for a few sources during the conflict or from those denying it 20 years later. There is insufficient RS to confirm that it even happened. Durraz0 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you Griboski for the cited passage. It would appear that the two articles cite the same person who's contradicting herself (some people killed by grenades thrown in and some survivors vs eveyone taken away and machine gunned) therefore not the most reliable source. At best, she is indicating that an undetermined number of people were killed there that day. Beyond her report, there's nothing on the killings in sources outside Veritas (at least as of today). I agree with the above observation that it seems very implausible that there's so little published on killing of 55 civilians/pows in a village in a day, especially considering ICTY investigations of such killings in the area. Maybe it is just that no reliable sources made significant coverage of an actual event, but then it fails WP:GNG.Tomobe03 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negros Oriental (disambiguation)

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

All terms are WP:PARTIAL. In other words, none of these would be confused with "Negros Oriental". HueMan1 (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. There was no support for the proposed Redirect as an ATD. However, per the comments here, I protected the page until February 2026 - one year before the expected election. There is no point in having to go through additional rounds of AfD, and no need for a permanent SALT. By then, hopefully, the upcoming election will have enough coverage to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 16:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

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

I don't see much change since the last AfD. It still a case of WP:TOOSOON. The references are merely passing. - The9Man Talk 09:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. These keep getting made and inevitably end up back here. There's no point in salting because eventually they will have to get made. Once sourcing becomes available for the actual election this can be redirected to the election article and then redirected back to the Assembly article after the election. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting prematurely serves no real purpose. Instead, it might be more effective to wait until sufficient sources become available to create a standalone election page that offers meaningful content. - The9Man Talk 16:13, 2 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 11:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohei Yumisaki

[edit]
Kyohei Yumisaki (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)

With a career consisting of 15 matches in the lower divisions of Japan, I see the chances of fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as slim. Sources in Ja:wiki are about participating in tryouts that didn't pan out as well as his team finishing second in a university championship. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadiputradila Saswadimata

[edit]
Hadiputradila Saswadimata (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)

With only 474 minutes of playtime in Singapore under his belt, I don't see any hope of meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Bushi

[edit]
Aldo Bushi (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)

Modest career with 81 minutes in Albania’s highest league and some seasons in the semi-pro seocnd tier with 1–7 games in each. Considering the minor accomplishments, this good source is not enough to push him over the WP:GNG bar. A further source search only yielded stat sites, social media and namesakes. I don’t know what this is, though, it’s a poem marked as humor. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrii Palekha

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. APK hi :-) (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Avro Keyboard. ✗plicit 11:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi_Hasan_Khan

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

I'm the subject in the article. I regard myself as a non-notable and private person. There are millions of people who create open-source software and that shouldn't be the bar for having a biography on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this page contains personal information on me, and my family members without any citation/source and violates their privacy as well. Mehdihasankhan (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table of bases

[edit]
Table of bases (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 table of base conversions has been unsourced since its creation in 2003. Most of its bases are themselves non-notable and its digit systems for them unstandardized. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository for mathematical tables, which in general have become obsolete since the widespread availability of computers. Some entries in Category:Mathematical tables have prose and references; this one is pure calculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's fine information for a handbook but not an encyclopedia. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is not an encyclopedic table per all the arguments above (i note that the keep votes have not adressed the content of those), the potentially useful parts could be included in the articles about the corresponding numeral systems (which is likely already the case for most of them). jraimbau (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDATABASE. The table is too indiscriminate. A smaller table, linked to secondary sources (such as textbooks) with similar tables could justify its inclusion. Suriname0 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Even without discarding the !votes that read as little more than a personal attack, the Delete arguments carry far more P&G weight than the ones calling for keeping the article. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

[edit]
Rosemary's Baby (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)

After consideration and researching the article myself, I can not find signifigant coverage of Rosemary's Baby as a franchise with a any serious depth. Despite the large amount of citations found in the lead and the amount of content within the article. MOS:FILMSERIES says series and franchise articles would "benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole", but we have only been pulling from individual film/tv/work reception and are lacking in material that discusses the entirety of the work. This is predominantly material repeating information already available on the unique film/TV/novel articles.

  • Two articles are primarily about the 50th anniversary of the first film. There is little discussion of it as a series or a franchise outside other briefs about the development of the film.
    • Woman's World has little discussion other than a sequel was made to the film, a follow-up was made to the first book, and a television series was adapted. But there is no real discussion of the franchise from a critical, analytical, or business matter. The articles does not refer to it as a franchise, series, or anything.
    • Mental Floss Similarly, is a list of 13 facts about the first film, some tangentially related to the other material related to either the film or novel.
  • Articles that praise the first film, and the announcement of a sequel/prequel/remake.
    • Collider and The Guardian articles primarily praise the first film, and announce a follow up is being developed. There is little discussion about the whole thing as a series/franchise, while boasting the quality of the first film.
    • Screencrush is probably the closest in detail to anything, but barely traces it mentioning the tv sequel and a miniseries version. No critical analysis, no history of the film's production as a series or franchise with just a brief mention of the cast returning or not returning for 1970s tv-entry.
  • Sources that call it a franchise fail WP:SIGCOV, as they are trivial mentions, that fail to "address the topic directly and in detail."
    • Comicbook.com states "The movie successfully launched a titular franchise, which includes a 1976 made-for-TV sequel, an upcoming streaming exclusive prequel (2024), and a television series adaptation." this is the only amount of depth applied and like the Guardian and Collider sources, are presented as press releases for sequels to give them prestige, there is no context to it as a series.
    • Sportskeeda seems to fail WP:RSP, and can be seen here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sportskeeda.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the production of individual items. occasionally peppering in that Rosemary's Baby has been called the greatest [horror] film ever a few times and regurgitates material that is already available in the individual articles for the books, series and novels, and places them side by side with no commentary to why we are comparing them. This goes against WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." In this case, we have barely anything discussing it as a franchise and run with content that is just discussing one film or another and places no information on why we have to know this info or how it relates to each or if it was even important to this group of works. The same goes for the film gross, which lists the first film's gross, then restates it as a "Total" for the series and has no information on how much the novels or TV series, in terms of cost, production or anything. This is just regurgitating information from the first article.

Beyond this, the article presents original research such as an "Official Franchise Logo". At the same time, the logo in question on [on Wikimedia] refers to it as just the films logo, not a series or franchise. From my search, I've only seen it used for the TV adaptation and the original.

On searching books, websites, and the Wikipedia Library, I have found tons of content discussing the novel and first book, but nothing outside spare mentions like the above. I propose that the article be deleted or merged with a legacy section on the first novel and first film respectively for their respective content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm surprised to have so many participants in this AFD given one of the longest deletion nomination statements I've come across. Glad it didn't discourage editors from voicing their arguments. I'm not chiding the nominator, it's just an observation. I see a lot of "Fails WP:GNG" or "Notability issues" deletion rationales so the fuller explanation is appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "franchise" enough. Plus one forthcoming. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperbolick: the deletion suggestion is not enough that it exists, the commentary is about if there is enough discussion on whether there is enough signifigant coverage of the topic as a franchise, which this topic fails per the discussion above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As there has been votes, but little discussion. I'm going to bring up the essay WP:THREE. This is not wikipedia standard, but I think it will help me address what I'm trying to get across, specifically reading WP:SIGCOV and understanding it, and lastly it suggests after to "Look over your list of sources and find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing.". While the editors above have commented that there are "more than enough sources" or simply ""franchise" enough", they did not seem to address the points I was trying to make. On that, I would welcome @Mushy Yank:, @Hyperbolick:, @StarTrekker:, @Dimadick:, and @Trailblazer101: (even though they seem to follow my train of thought, they should be invited to discuss) to come forward and show me how the sources or content follows the WP:SIGCOV rules, specifically ones that "address the topic directly and in detail." per WP:SIGCOV. This is in terms of discussing it as a franchise, over individual films, which is my bigger issue. All other comments and editors are welcome of course.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To follow-up, I have tagged several editors and asked them to follow-up on their original response to keep the article on September 23. Outside ★Trekker, there have been no responses that directly comment on my initial issues of WP:SIGCOV. I would also like to bring up WP:SNG which again highlights that we require "in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing". While Wikipedia:Notability (films) exists, it only goes into detail about individual films, not franchises for notability or content requirements. Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises seemingly has no developed standards. No source within the article discussing the film as a franchise, goes beyond a brief mention, from this, the article delves into comparisons about budget, cast, crew, and critical response which fails WP:WEIGHT, (specifically "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.") as none of these topics are brought up within the context of a franchise in any article discussing it this way. As the only editor to regularly respond has been the one mentioned above who has not really discussed content of the article, I propose WP:SILENCE which states that when other editors have no commented after being pinged, "their silence will be construed as agreement." Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the supplemental page you refer to applies in the case of AfDs (see its scope of application, please), especially if other users are only pinged. I personally often remain silent in other AfDs, even when pinged or even when I receive a reply or a comment is addressed to me, when I think all has been said or when I dislike the tone/spirit of the question or comment or when I think the question or reply is not relevant or is disruptive. In the present case, to clarify, if you really wish me to do so, I simply would like to stand by my !vote, in which I have said all I thought useful regarding the issue you have raised. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I haven't responded to that, I am curious what you would add/change to the article if it were to remain as a WP:SETINDEX @Mushy Yank:? I don't think your idea is necessarily a poor one, but without context, i'm not sure what it entails. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant cuts (including whole sections maybe) should probably be discussed, as should renaming the page, but, again, that can happen on the TP of the article. I probably will not make any further comments on the present page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. Thanks for clarifying as the brief "Keep" and rule discussion beforehand did not really clarify what you think would be the best step going forward. I appreciate you taking the time to follow-up @Mushy Yank:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any critical discussion of the franchise, a brief mention here [36], but a surprising amount of scholarly reviews of the Polanski film [37]... This appear to be a synth article, with little bits for each piece of media put together to build the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Strongly disagree with your proposition. Other editors are correct in pointing out that this has the stench of other situations you have done before (many are familiar with that history). There are a number or reliable sources that detail the franchise as a whole (see my talking points at Talk:Rosemary's Baby (franchise) #Sources for reference. With the release of Apartment 7A, there are additional sources that I will be adding there as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DisneyMetalhead:, a few points per WP:AFDEQ, I do not really appreciate of my editing has a "stench" of anything. As for your comments, I've already addressed your content, its not a lack of sources, its a lack of content within the sources. Per WP:SIGCOV, it fails to address the "topic directly and in detail", with an emphasis on the latter, all the information is pulled about the films individually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verum Coin

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

No evidence of coverage in real media. The Guardian article, for example, does not mention the article subject. I'd almost A7 it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close‎. This should be taken to WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal potatoes

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

This is one of very few pages which soft redirect to Wikibooks and the only such page about a food item. Besides this isn't a famous dish either. Kumar Dayal (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing coalition (Italy)

[edit]
Left-wing coalition (Italy) (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 very weird incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB). (1) There is no general/international Left-wing coalition dab page where this could be merged, and I can't find other WP pages listing left-wing coalitions. (2) Maybe there is potential for a WP:BROADCONCEPT article like Left-wing politics in Croatia, but the notability of the topic is unclear: There is no interwiki link (including Italian); List of political parties in Italy mentions "left-wing" once, and List of political coalitions in Italy none. So: Should this page even exist? – sgeureka t•c 12:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not technically "create" the article, it was created [38] by @Nick.mon: when there was a coalition of left-wing parties in Sicily which eventually became Free and Equal (Italy) and thus redirected there. It wasn't accurate since there are/were other coalitions before and after. I wouldn't mind a WP:BROADCONCEPT article or maybe something like Centre-right coalition (Italy) (the latter would have the problem that multiple coalition compete, in 2018 there were three coalitions) Braganza (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if we create an article, it should start with 1991 before this the line would become more blurry i think with PSI & PCI Braganza (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jammu (1808)

[edit]
Battle of Jammu (1808) (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)

KM Panikkar is the only reliable source presented here. Autar Singh Sandhu is not a reliable source as there is only one book that can be traced to him which was written in 1935; there are zero mentions of his educational credentials, bibliography, or reviews of scholarly work available, and he was deprecated by an admin in the RSN-[39]. The link to GULAB SINGH (1792-1857) is broken. Panikkar does make some mention of this battle (in page 15 and 16), but the information is not sufficient enough to warrant an article.

Note: AFDs pertaining to conflicts involving Sikhs have been targeted in the past by socks. I will focus only on content/sourcing issues in the AFD, but will seek outside resolution if there are indicators of sockpuppetry/block evasion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please keep comments reserved to discussing the article, its sources and notablity and not about other editors who may or may not be socks. Not every editor who disagrees with you is a sock or is trying to sabotage a discussion. Please refocus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I substantially trimmed the addendum, and will only focus on content/sourcing issues in the discussion. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews University Canoe Club

[edit]
St Andrews University Canoe Club (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 and WP:ORG. The most significant source among the references is the two-minute BBC clip, where the club was mentioned in passing in an episode of a TV series about the east coast of Scotland. This university sports club lacks the sort of in-depth, national-level coverage required for WP:ORG. I had boldly redirected this to University of St Andrews Athletic Union, but this was revereted. Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The passing reference is as much about St Andrews university as the canoe club. It tells us almost nothing about the club. Individual university clubs and societies of a University student body are rarely notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darpan Sanghvi

[edit]
Darpan Sanghvi (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 promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edelyne Mia Martanegara

[edit]
Edelyne Mia Martanegara (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 subject generally fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:BIO requirements. The only notable achievement is winning a local beauty pageant, and all available references revolve solely around this accomplishment, possibly WP:SINGLEEVENT. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I'll salt this page title but there is a huge number of varieties of this name that could be used and I won't salt them all. And I know from participating in SPI cases that checkusers and clerks are generally not fans of salting pages. The existing ones can serve as a "honey trap" that was being proposed. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santadas Kathiababa

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Santadas Kathiababa (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 has already been deleted four times and repeatedly recreated with unsatisfactory sourcing. I think it needs to be salted. Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Deb Pradipta
  2. Bozz aldrin
  3. Rozz Taile
  4. Killz Gough
  5. Thisyer bot
  6. Hindu Historic
  7. Hindu Sanskriti
  8. Olaitan Kiltan
Srabanta Deb's talk page shows that some previous versions of it were speedy-deleted, in addition to the previous versions deleted after deletion discussions.
Whenever the article was deleted, Srabanta Deb or his socks recreated it, usually under a slightly different name; then after a few days he/she usually moved the recreated article to a new name to confuse people and to create redirects. Names used include: Santadas Kathiababa, Santa Das Kathiababa, Santadasji Kathia Baba, Santadasji Kathiababa, Santa Dasji Kathiababa, Swami Santadas Kathiababa, Swami Santa Das Kathiababa, Swami Santa Dasji Kathiababa (they all have deletion histories). So if you want to delete this article, you need not only to salt it, but to salt all likely variations on the name.
There are three pragmatic reasons for keeping this article:
  • Because whenever it has been deleted, it has been recreated shortly afterwards.
  • Because its article history has been useful in supporting sock puppet investigations against new socks of Srabanta Deb.
  • Because if we know where the article on Santadas Kathiababa is, we can keep an eye on the content. If a new sock wants to improve the article, he/she will need to read sources and use them to write statements that really are backed by those citations (which is not the case now). Until then the article will remain adorned with improvement templates making it clear to readers that the contents of the article are suspect.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He/she has never tried Swami Santadasji Kathia Baba, but if you do delete this article, I suggest salting that one too, because it fits the pattern of variations that he/she has tried.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Moncino Musachi

[edit]
Domenico Moncino Musachi (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)

Weird bio. Assuming the person existed, the quotation contained in the article isn’t about them. Also, since practically nothing is known about them, they would not be notable in any case, and the article could be redirected. But the content of this article doesn’t agree with the information in Voisava Kastrioti, and neither of the two sources cited appear to me to mention the subject. So it looks like either a hoax of some very stretchy OR. Mccapra (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2023 Rugby World Cup squads#Uruguay. Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Deus

[edit]
Carlos Deus (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 rugby player. No sigcov. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Cabrils (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for this Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicas Terremoto del Folklore

[edit]
Chicas Terremoto del Folklore (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 music band. fails WP:BAND. Cabrils (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sada-e-Umeed

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sada-e-Umeed (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)

Faila NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. This was an AfD'd in 2020 that closed as non-consensus. The only vote to keep the article had a counterargument that wasn't addressed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gillespie Cave

[edit]
Gillespie Cave (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 cave, has no sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Clarke

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. Not clear whether the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gilbert

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Gilbert (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 last AfD nomination was closed on a technicality (as I understand it), but this individual does not seem to have met notability criteria either for ACTOR or even GNG. Hopefully we get can an answer here as to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was up for AfD a few months ago, and since then, there have been so many other attacks like this one. I don't see notability, based on the lack of any sort of continued coverage, that would make this attack stand out from the other hundreds of such attacks at this point. NOTNEWS? Discuss below so it can be settled. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete sadly, although tragic, its just another missile strike from the Russia-Ukraine wars spillovers and affects on civillians in russia and ukraine alike, it has no standing notabillity. @Oaktree b Lolzer3k 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Veleva

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2007. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paul Polansky. czar 02:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak

[edit]
Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak (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)

Found no reliable, significant sources. This recent source does call it "controversial", but does not specify why. That does indicate that there may be coverage I was unable to find. There is discussion about the author's investigation into this topic but the author has written several books on it and the coverage isn't about this one specifically, so imo it should go on the author's page if there aren't sources about this book specifically. The one source in the ELs might be coverage of this book, or it might not, could not find it. Redirect to author Paul Polansky? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. Consensus is trending towards merging these by-position lists to a single comprehensive one, perhaps with fewer listed per position, as a viable ATD. I am also closing the other nominated by-position lists similarly. Editors are welcome to BOLDly merge the lists mentioned here but not currently nominated, or start a discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders

[edit]
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders (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)

Looked at the sources, and besides baseball-reference, there isn't much to justify the list as a group. If this included all double plays, then it might be more notable as a group, as Baseball Almanac covers it. Since it is only the one position, I think WP:NOTSTATS comes into play. Edit Including the bottom two for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opposition to the merger has been raised, and to allow a full week for the added articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Deletion and Merge. However, the merge target article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders which is also up for an AFD discussion. So, this discussion can't close as a possible Merge until the fate of that article is determined. You might consider participating in that discussion, too, so it can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Dear me. Let's see.
WP:SALAT has nothing to do with this situation. Besides some housekeeping notes, it gives three annotated examples of the types of lists to avoid:
  • "list of brand names" (Way too broad, could have millions of entries)
  • "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" (Of no interest to anyone)
  • "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" (Does not contribute to the state of human knowledge)
This list is not remotely like any of those, not even close.
Another editor wrote "I am not sure that double plays by right fielders is inherently notable", but then why would you want to want to be in this discussion if you don't know that? (Narrator: they are.)
WP:NLIST, c'mon. If you think that this dataset has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" very many times, you must not read much in depth about baseball, in which case why are you trying to erase the work of editors who apparently have. It's late, and I shouldn't have to go get refs to prove the sky is blue.
And in addition to that, the nomination might be malformed. Not sure. I'll leave that that to an admin to decide. I got here from the center fielder article and that is confusing and it took me a bit to figure out what was going on -- apparently it was made into a group nom midstream, which is not a deal-killer but tricky, and not made clear enough, all the articles in the class are supposed to right up top, and that might be important enough that we want to start over. And if so well we have a wikiproject on baseball and maybe there would be the place to start with a discussion on the general question of "should we have these types of articles generally"? We're not going to be deleting or merging the shortstops DP article (if we are, just shoot me), so why are we singling out outfielders in particular, etc etc etc. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of that argument can be summarized with WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and proof by assertion. Also, the examples provided in WP:SALAT are just that, examples, it's not meant to be exhaustive; the concept or principle is what matters. Left guide (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Left Guide, I'd like to see the sources. Conyo14 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the nominator said that Baseball Reference is a source (which it is, altho you might have to have a subscription). Extremely reliable source. We don't need multiple sources I believe.
I don't know what so say about WP:SALAT thing. It doesn't say or imply "You should avoid these sorts of things, but... um there are lots of other things you should avoid but we aren't gonna say, wink wink, use your imagination". You could invoke SALAT against literally any list if you liked.
I'd prefer not to be SHOUTED AT thanks. And no I'm not going to stop washing my cat and look up sources for you when WP:BEFORE has not been done into the corpus of books, many available thru the Internet Library and library loan, which is a lot of work but for a group of articles of this calibre would be called for. Since you are taking it upon yourselves to participate here, you ought to know that the rubric for keeping is not "is the article ref'd" but "can the article be reffed with reasonable effort".
"Other stuff exists" only applies if that other stuff should also not exist. Right? Am I wrong there? As to proof by assertion:

Proof by assertion [is when] a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation. The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers

How dare you. This would be insulting if it wasn't so obviously just throwing words so it looks like you have an actual argument. Way to turn this into a playground fight. I wrote one gosh-darn post, cogent enough and not terribly prolix I don't think.
Look. It's apparent that you guys are looking for an excuse to delete these perfectly good articles, to the point where it's a problem. If you are making a regular practice of this it's a big problem. You obviously didn't read my post with the position "Hmmm let's see what this guy has to say and maybe consider it" but rather "I'm not changing my mind, I am here to eradicate this work, period, for reasons of my own, so I'll only read it to look for ammo to achieve that end." Sheesh.
I also would like to remind the closer that it's not a vote. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Baseball Reference is a source for this list, but secondary sources are required to establish notability. WP:SECONDARY:

A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Can you indicate where in that source there is thought, reflection, analysis, evaluation, or interpretation? Left guide (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or alternatively, if you are unable to identify secondary coverage in Baseball Reference, can you please provide other sources which show secondary coverage of this list topic? Left guide (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough search of sources, but found nothing on this subject nor its sisters in the bundling. Baseball reference is a good source, but it's also the only source to which I say it's not enough. Also, calm down. I just want to see the sources you're talking about and then analyze them. If you did a WP:BEFORE, which should be done by voters too, then please provide. Conyo14 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for being polite and making cogent points, good improvement.
Anyway, so here's the rub, and it turns out we're just having a terminology mismatch. Not anybody'ss fault really. Another term for "outfield double play" is "outfield assist", and that's more common. Annnnd... another term -- more modern and informal-- is "baserunner kills". This is pointed out in the lede, bolded, but way down. I can see where one wouldn't know to search on that, particularly if they don't know the subject.
So, searching on "baserunner kills" gets me this article at something called Batter's Box. Long article specifically on the topic, starts off:

BaseRunner Kills -- It's one of my favourite plays in baseball. And it's always a big play. When an outfielder throws out someone, at a minimum he's turning an opposition base runner into an out. He's not retiring a hitter, he's removing someone who's already reached base and is therefore a threat to score. When an outfielder throws out a runner at home plate, it's the next best thing to actually taking a run off the scoreboard...

And it goes on and on, paragraph after paragraph, long article, lots of info. Has a table with outfield kills as a rate stat -- kills per 1,000 innings. Much more informative IMO. Hopefully someone will come along and add that table after the existing one, also he points out that the list should be split into pre- and post-1920. And the article renamed. These're content issues tho.
I stopped there cos that's plenty.
I can see where searching on "outfield double plays" is not going to throw too many results. I searched on "outfield assists" and did get, not a lot, but enough to hang an article on, especially considering we've got the Batter's Box article.
I found in the The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, here,

Outfield assists, like catcher's assists, are inversely related to team performance. A bad team will have more outfield assists than a good team.

More than a passing mention anyway. Used in computing win shares I think.
This book has

While infielders record hundreds of assists per season, 10 is an excellent total for an outfielder. Tris Speaker, a legendary center fielder... holds both the single season (35) and career record (449)

There're some more, small, but if you pile them up they add up.
So hopefully terminology problem cleared up and Bob's your uncle?
So, but, couple things, it occurs to me, is this even a list article? It's got several paragraphs of text and then the list after. Name of the article doesn't matter, it could be renamed. The text isn't ref'd, but its all true and the writer didn't make it up, so there're sources out there. Tag that part of the article for lack of refs, that'd be fine.
As to original research... a lot of our lists are original research, and it's just not a problem. It doesn't detract from the Wikipedia. Don't worry about it. In fact the list rules tell you how to make a list. I made List of statues of Queen Victoria and I had to find and add them in one by one -- there's no existing list (that I could find). Is it bad article? Would it be better to 404 on readers searching for a list of statues on Queen Victoria? Of course not. What was I supposed to do instead of making that good article? Browse Reddit? How would that be adding to the sum of organized human knowledge? I wouldn't get overly attached to rules that don't help what we are trying to do here. Seriously. It's not a game where we try to win by finding some rule that lets us destroy OK articles. (Well I mean it is, but it shouldn't be).
(N.B. I added the above later than the following comment in order to keep the thread together.) Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing those. Unfortunately, it appears those sources discuss assists and not double plays (for Wikipedia's purposes they're distinctive terms since we have distinctive sets of articles for them), so I'm afraid you're at the wrong set of articles with those sources. However, your efforts are not wasted since those sources can be used to help establish notability at articles like List of Major League Baseball career assists as an outfielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a right fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a center fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a left fielder leaders. Left guide (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another term for "outfield double play" is "outfield assist", and that's more common. No, that's patently false and you know that based on how much you know about baseball; double plays and assists are fundamentally different concepts. That's an attempt to sneakily twist and gerrymander what the sources say in an WP:OR/WP:SYNTH manner when sources that directly discuss this topic don't exist. Left guide (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC) struck some bits that may be too harsh Left guide (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna disparage your research, but it appears that double plays and assists are different things according to the MLB. [40], [41]
But I think you may be somewhat on the right track? Conyo14 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's close enough that there is no need for a second article. The double play totals can be included in the assist article. Spanneraol (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing notice: An attempt was made to notify WikiProject Baseball of this discussion in a blatantly non-neutral manner in contravention of WP:CANVASS using the following language:

Heads up, attack on assists articles

Some editors are wanting to destroy the lists of outfield assists, here (left, center, and right in the same AfD): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders as a bad list (altho it is a full article also) -- They seem quite determined and unamenable to persuasion (although having no idea what an outfield assist is) so this looks like not a "let's together consider these articles" situation which is why I use the word "attack".

And I suppose they will succeed, assuming that the closer mainly relies on headcount or giving particular weight for certain rules.

(Infield assists are not under the gun -- yet. I see that for instance List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a shortstop leaders is tagged for lack of notability and I suppose will be attacked sooner or later.)

Is this OK? Are outfield assists just garbage trivia not worth including among our 7.6 million articles? What about shortstop assists? What about doubles, strikeouts, GIDP, what? I'm not a project member, just a casual fan, so I don't know where the line is. I don't see anybody from this project coming to the AfD to defend the articles. Maybe you all also don't care for these articles, and fine, but if it's just a matter of not noticing this happening to baseball stat articles, consider this a heads up, thanks.

Left guide (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 02:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Hovdahl Sandrød

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer using both "Elias Hovdahl Sandrød" and "Elias Sandrød" as a search term. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Baramova

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Elena Baramova (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)

Notability tag and BLP sourcing issues have been tagged for the last eleven years. No sources have been added in that time. Despite two previous AFDs, the article is still not referenced. Given the change in attitude towards needing sources on BLPs since the last AFD in 2009, it is time to look at this again. 4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Unsourced but external links provided. Subject to two previous AFDs (Kept, No consensus) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Anthems

[edit]
Capital Anthems (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 radio station. Lacks WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suemonella

[edit]
Suemonella (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 TikTok account. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 02:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hammer

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jens Hammer (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 "author" (blogger). Feels self-promotional. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article of a non-notable figure Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Anish

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Only 1 article links to this, the school he attended. A google news search seems to come up with mainly namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability, no new quality sources found in searches, citations in article are routine, promotional, self-penned, or 404'd, and not significant coverage. Even the book doesn't get more than one citation (and that paper isn't on GScholar). Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comilla Girls' College

[edit]
Comilla Girls' College (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 school. No WP:RS and unlikely any exist. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The citations are lists or directories of schools in the area and do not establish any type of notability; the merely state that this school exists. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Ira Leviton (talk)

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 Iain Aitch. czar 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fête Worse Than Death

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

I was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Gallardo-Domâs

[edit]
Cristina Gallardo-Domâs (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)

Unreferenced BLP. Not clear that subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is better than what we had, which was nothing. Thank you for your effort.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There might be some more refs I can find. Knitsey (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more refs. There might be more to come. I would really like for someone to take a look to see if they're suitable? Knitsey (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, I haven't really editied the article much, just provided refs for what was already there. I will re-work it a bit if this AfD results in keep. I need to check on the date order for all the operas listed. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Knitsey It appears you are eligible for access to Wikipedia Library. You should definitely take advantage of it, as it will save you an incredible amount of time. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to say, I completely forgot about that. Thank you so much for the reminder. Knitsey (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently added sources would be helpful. If they are adequate would the nominator consider a withdrawal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe (company)

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

Article fails demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Both TechCrunch articles are about routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). And not that it matters but the article was created by a now-blocked SPA. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This situation is confusing as it looks like it was nominated before at AFD but now the previous AFD has been deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet. So, I'm unsure whether or not it is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly both the creator of the article and the nominator of the previous AfD are both now blocked. Brandon (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. czar 02:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Turaccio

[edit]
Giancarlo Turaccio (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)

An article on a non-notable adherent of Menotti Lerro's so-called Empathic Movement (Empathism), part of a "walled garden" type series of articles promoting Lerro and Empathism. All of the sources are primary/press-releases or promo. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACADEMIC. A before search finds a few things he wrote, but his h-index on Google Scholar and Scopus is non-existant. I did find something the Menotti Lerro wrote on him and other Empathism manifesto signatories, but that is obviously connected. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 02:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvio Annese

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

Another article on a non-notable artist and professor from a "walled garden"-type series of articles promoting the "members" of Menotti Lerro's "movement/manifesto", Empathism and his New Manifesto of Arts. The subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG, all the sources are primary/connected except the Milano Today source that simple name-checks him in a mention. As an academic, he fails WP:NACADEMIC as he has a h-index of zero on Google Scholar and Scopus, and all I could find was an article written by Lerro about his own (Lerro's) so-called Empathic movement. I beleive this is WP:PROMO and should be deleted. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 02:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Casciello

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

This article on an Italian artist is part of a sort-of "walled garden" of articles on artists and academics affiliated with Menotti Lerro's so-called movement, Empathism and who signed his manifesto. The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG as the sources are all primary sources except, perhaps one, however that may be a press release. Fails WP:NARTIST. The article claims he was in the Venice Bienale 3 times, altho this could not be verified by the Venice Bienale itself [42]], so perhaps he was in one of the satellite shows but not represented in the actual Bienale. As an academic he fails WP:NACADEMIC, as there is an h-index score of zero on Google Scholar and Scopus I found a few things he wrote, but they were not cited by others. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per nom. Empathism spam, no real evidence of notability. — Biruitorul Talk 10:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changing vote to Delete, per nomination. This does look like a cookie-cutter article springing from Empathism. Leaving that aside, I see him in ALK online, and two exhibitions. I cannnot, however, find RS for the claim that he was at the Venice Biennale three times, unless the source given https://www.accademiavirtuosi.it/accademici/biovirtuoso.php?id=20 is to be trusted. Perhaps I am searching the internet incorrectly, but I thought the Biennale was documented well by the Biennale. He has been quoted in the volume by Vittorio Sgarbi (edited by), La scultura del Novecento in Italia, in Enciclopedia Universale dell'Arte (Mondadori: 1990); in Gillo Dorfles, Ultime tendenze nell'arte oggi (Feltrinelli: 1999) and in Vittorio Sgarbi (edited by), Lo Stato dell’Arte / Campania 54 Biennale di Venezia (Skira publishing: 2011). is just a weird claim sentence. WP:CIR. Not sure what to do about this one.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Netherzone. Axad12 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Chow Wang

[edit]
Lulu Chow Wang (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 that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Peek, Liz (2007-05-08). "Lulu Wang Throttles Back (Except on the Racetrack)". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

      The article notes: "Ms. Wang is one of the original members of the Committee of 100, a group of high-level Chinese-Americans — who include I.M. Pei, Yo-Yo Ma, and Oscar Tang — created shortly after the Tiananmen Square crackdown ... The move was accidental. Her father’s job as a senior official with the Nationalist Party took the Chow family to India during the war years of the 1940s. Ms. Wang was born in New Delhi under the crudest of circumstances. ... Following this path, Ms. Wang moved on to Bankers Trust Co., where she was soon responsible for analyzing about 20% of the Standard & Poor’s 500. ... Ms. Wang opened Tupelo Capital Management in 1998. Her husband, Anthony Wang, had made a fortune at Computer Associates, a firm founded by his brother, which ran into problems after Tony Wang retired in 1992."

    2. Zernike, Kate (2000-04-16). "Couple Gives Wellesley a Record $25 Million". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

      The article notes: "Lulu Wang is the founder of Tupelo Capital Management, a name chosen tongue-in-cheek with reference to one of Wellesley's more girlish traditions. ... Mrs. Wang has been a member of Wellesley's board of trustees since 1988, and is the first woman to head the board's investment committee, which is in charge of investing the college's endowment, valued at about $1 billion. She also heads the finance committee of the New York Community Trust and serves on a number of other boards in New York, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, WNYC and the Metropolitan Museum of Art."

    3. Norton, Leslie P. (2002-12-09). "The Chinese Connection". Barron's. ProQuest 201096765. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

      The article notes: "One newly prominent donor is Lulu Wang, a patrician Chinese-American who runs Tupelo Capital Management, a New York money-management firm. Wang came here with her family from Shanghai in 1948; a vacation became permanent immigration as her father, tied to the Nationalists, opted to stay in America. Her $25 million gift to Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1966, was given to build a new student center. Construction on the Wang Campus Center will start next year, and finish in 2004. Wang has been active for years in philanthropic circles -- she's a board member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York public radio station WNYC, and Wellesley. She's also funding Bill Moyers' coming PBS series "Becoming American: The Chinese Experience.""

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Agnew, Harriet (2022-03-03). "Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood on everything from deflation to Elon Musk". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

        The article notes: "In 1998, as the dotcom bubble was reaching its climax, Wood and one of her colleagues, Lulu Wang, left Jennison to set up a fund in New York called Tupelo Capital Management. By the end of March 2000, the peak of the tech bubble, Tupelo’s assets under management had reached almost $1.4bn, according to a regulatory filing. Twelve months later, Tupelo’s assets had slumped to around $200mn, according to a separate regulatory filing."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lulu Chow Wang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Barrons article is about her father, and gives her a single paragraph, and one that is very similar to other short paragraphs about her. I find it interesting that the NYT article (which also has 2 paragraphs about her, the rest refers to she and her husband as a unit) says that they declined to be interviewed. This may indicate that she has been reticent about publicity, and that may explain why we don't have much about her. Ditto the Financial Times article (which has only a mention of Wang) which says "Wang declined to comment." I did find one more article about her at msnbc. This has a lot of her words so it resembles an interview but isn't presented in interview form. I think it's worth digging, but I am not finding the kind of analysis that would be independent. Everything I see just reiterates the same few facts about her. It's kind of frustrating, I admit. Lamona (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for uncovering the MSNBC article which is a very good find. That in-depth profile solidifies her notability. I think there is enough nontrivial coverage across all the sources for Lulu Chow Wang to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to the two New York Times sources and the ones mentioned above I found one from MSNBC. There are others as well to pass WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The Delete arguments carry more P&G weight than the Keeps. Popularity, as measured by the number of subscribers, has never been a measure of notability here, and citing WP:NEXIST without pointing to actual sources establishing SIGCOV is neither here nor there. Owen× ☎ 16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Dastak

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

I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:WEB from any perspective." Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed.
    • Source 1 misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."
    • Source 2 misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."
    • Source 3 has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".
    • Source 4 has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."
    • Source 5 has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the misleading title of the source.
    • Source 6 has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."
    • Source 7 has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".
    • Source 8 has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is based on the sources that exist, not ones that are in the article. When I have provided other sources above, you need to demonstrate that they do not confer notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not look at the sources you provided in your vote but I did now. Source 1 is giving me 404 error, source 2,4,5,6 are all same WP:ROUTINE news about union government asking YouTube to take down ‘National Dastak’ from its platform. Source 2 is likely unreliable as Mumbai Mirror's about us page has comments from Wikipedia and the disclaimer says that it does not take responsibility for the reports by contributors. Source 3 is about the Journalist Anmol Pritam who works for YouTube channel National Dastak and was forced to chant a slogan by a mob and the article has also claims made by the journalist himself to another news media. This is all routine news. Not enough to pass WP:NCORP imv. RangersRus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vanamonde93 added Ref and WP:NEXIST there is Hindi coverage about the channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The issue is that the additional sources provided do not meet WP:WEBCRIT. All of the sources except for two fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so they are not reliable. This one simply mentions a journalist that works for National Dastak while this one provides some detail but isn't in-depth (and if considered in-depth, that leaves one reference). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep with million subscribers, this channel is one of the most important YouTube news platform and I think a lot of reference will be found if searched.
Admantine123 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admantine123, it's the responsibility of editors wanting to Keep an article to go out and locate those reliable sources as Vanamonde93 has done. I'm not sure who else you thought would spend the time in this "search". Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with million subscribers and has Hindi coverage.122.172.87.137 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm leaning towards delete after the source analysis. Vanamonde93 got a good argument, but as RangersRus pointed out, those are all passing mentions and I can't find a good RS with any SIGCOV except the primary ones. There might be sources present but most of them are primary ones. It might be biggest channel (possibly, but unsourced claim), but it is not mentioned anywhere as such and passing mentions do not amount to GNG or WEB. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:32, 2 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. Thanks for the great lengths some editors went to track down and check sources. But the source analysis is not successfully rebutted. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Khel Sawalyancha

[edit]
Ha Khel Sawalyancha (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)

Cannot locate sources to show notability. There are a few mentions but nothing that amount to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source analysis.
    • Source 1 is unreliable source and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
    • Source 2 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
    • Source 3 is a link to a song on YouTube video. Nothing significant here either.

I looked for sources online to get significant coverage and WP:NFILM but after 4 pages of search, I could not find any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I referenced two sources in Award section and noted a film in several Marathi books such as -.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Morekar (talk • contribs)
    @User:Morekar, the books you provided here aren't verifiable. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES and provide the full bibliographical details, most importantly, the page numbers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done.@SafariScribe Allows to verify the film was a great success according to sources (not to mention the cast, plot, themes, etc). Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. None of the new sources with Google books links are verifiable. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation with page number(s) to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. RangersRus (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I hate redirects being turned up after redirecting and I would prefer deletion to an obviously non notable article. While we try to save an article as much as possible per WP:ATD, we should be careful to avoid leaving non notable ones as redirects (my opinion). This article, to all eyes, doesn't meet WP:NFILM and if the casts are notable, then there should be a bit, atleast, WP:SIGCOV. Bearing the lack of SIGCOV in mind, I would be ready to redirect to the director's article (who also clearly doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR) if reliable sources that could be used to verify the cast and crew of the film are provided. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are imv sources on the page to verify partially the cast and crew. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All the changes have been reviewed and analyzed in my last note. RangersRus (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your general note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see WP: Systemic bias, thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See WP:V. RangersRus (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t mean to surprise you but I did pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes are significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but significant, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If so-called should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you but it is no help and thank you for your final reply. Nothing significant as expected. RangersRus (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: a rapid check allowed me to verify 3 of the sources added through Gbooks (I added the page for 2 ). I see now even less reasons to doubt the veracity of the sources added by Morekar. I thought there might have been a transcription problem but no, the title in most of the cited English sources apparently corresponds to the title of the article. I’ll do my best to add the pages of other sources cited, though, as this might be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (I have added the pages to all of the significant references added by Morekar, that should now be considered verifiable and verified :D; I will not re-add the AfD changed template, though :D; )[reply]
How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a review but just a passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was making that assumption based on no replies from previous requests as well. Thanks for taking the time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:@Morekar: Can you please provide page numbers along with inline citation of what the sources actually say to check if it is just an entry or something significant. We need significant coverage and I googled but just found entries and nothing significant. If you can provide all the information that helps with the content for verification, it will help. RangersRus (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to verify all the sources you added and as expected nothing significant to pass WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD participants are invited, by the template inserted above in the discussion, to read the page and not simply assume or assert the changes are not significant and the sources add no weight to notability. A single source, for example, stating the film was a ’superhit’ (source wording) is significant per se. And denying it is at best bizarre.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage. What is "bizarre" is that two editors have asked for the excerpts of those references that some are citing as significant yet nothing has been provided except assertions.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of whether the available sources provide significant coverage would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All Source analysis.
    • Source 1 Google snippet page 161, has an entry with film name, language of the film, color, length, name of director, producer, musician, and four cast members followed with "Woman fears servants ghost haunts bungalow." That's it. No significant coverage.
    • Source 2, Google Snippet page 130 has an entry with translation of the film title. No significant coverage.
    • Source 3, Google snippet page 22, has an entry, "crime thrillers (title of three different films, one of which is the subject)". No significant coverage.
    • Source 4, Google Snippet page 139 is by a filmmaker and scriptwriter of same industry and very likely a self published through "Maharashtra Film, Stage & Cultural Development Corporation" who are also the contributor, has passing mention "Ha Khel Savlyancha ( 1976 ) , a suspense thriller interwoven with a supernatural legend , be- came a superhit but could not wean the indus- try away from its famnily melodramas ." (That is exactly how family is misspelled). Keeping the unreliability question aside, still no significant coverage.
    • Source 5 Unreliable sources that is a blog indiancine.ma and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
    • Source 6 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
    • Source 7 passing mention of film critically and commercially acclaimed and one of the actor Jairam played memorable role in highest grossing film of the time. Not significant coverage on the film.
    • Source 8 is link to YouTube video of a song. No coverage at all.
    • Source 9, 10 are same books with Google snippet page 40, reads Best Music Director and best color photography for the film (does not mention awarded by who or what award show). No significant coverage anyhow.
    • Source 11 and 13 are snippets from same book with no page numbers. One snippet with entry of DVD release in 2009 and the other snippet in few words that the film "deeply rooted in the village life of Maharashtra". No significant coverage.
    • Source 12 is about one of the song from the film remade for modern audiences. Nothing significant again.

Entries, trivial and passing mention only and no source addresses the topic directly and in detail. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great analysis which just reaffirms (for me) that it exists, but verification is not notability. Thanks for doing the digging. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is not an issue but "not deleted" is not the same thing as "keep." WP:NFO says reiterates what you say but means that sources are "likely to exists" showing notability. Unfortunately, those sources do not exist here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There was a suggestion in the last AFD that this article be Redirected to North Korea national football team#Top goalscorers so that is an option that might be considered. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Chol-hyok

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
An Chol-hyok (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 fails WP:GNG. The one source provided is not nearly enough. Redirect to 2010 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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