Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 16

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Gaming (edit | talk | history | 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 esports company. Created by the CEO or someone close (disclosed COI), relying almost entirely on press releases and sponsorship announcements (all non-independent) and unreliable sources. WP:VG/S's search has no real indepth independent coverage. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Noting that I came across this article based on a mention on Discord. I don't believe the references to be sufficient to show independent WP:SIGCOV. My searches for RS didn't add anything to push it over the bar either. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfiltered google results for "Tribe Gaming" primarily show promotional material; When looking in the "News" category, the only results are about gambling in Native American reservations. — BABR・talk 03:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. Non-notable esports company.TH1980 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unable to find sources sufficient for NCORP or the GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chief Pat might have some relevance but his organisation probably not. Esport Observer IgelRM (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Pat, created by the same COI editor, was already deleted at AFD. Interviews are not independent. -- ferret (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. A rough consensus emerged after the third relist. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections, which is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. The most pertinent info is already included in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with severe pruning. Ditch the NBA statistics and Career high sections and trim the NBA records, but that still leaves a notable boatload of the last, e.g. most points scored, most blocks (both now second), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Too many for one regular bio page. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy. Kareem is one of the sport's greatest players, something which has drawn extremely extensive commentary, so I don't think this is really indiscriminate.

jp×g🗯️ 21:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... unless there's a solid reason to delete it beyond being statistics-heavy: The nom mentioned WP:NOTSTATS, which is a policy. —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic achievements are already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § NBA career statistics, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Athletic honors and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. Consistent with consensus against standalone odes to other Basketball Hall of Fame players and "top 10" of all-time like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Let's see if a relisting helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sole delete vote recommends merging the material into the main article. However, that article is very long (8098 words), and WP:SIZESPLIT applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not recommend a merge at all: As most of this page is unsourced (tagged since April), there's no opportunity to merge either. As also mentioned, WP:NOTSTATS applies for the trivial numbers as well.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• First all-time (second now) scoring, rebounding and blocked shots are "trivial numbers"? Also, why are you typing "*:"? ":*" actually does something with the asterisk. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned previously, major stats such as those are presented in prose at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar § Legacy. It doesn't need a standalone list conflated with unsourced trivial stats. As for the indenting question, I was using the reply tool, and its formatting seems consistent with Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks § Best practices—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Colons_and_asterisks#Best_practices says to use things like ":::" or "***", not a mixture. If the reply tool is doing something else, then it's faulty in a minor way. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

There's a mixed example there showing *****: sixth reply.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Bagumba. The important material is already at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, either in the infobox or in the body. I suspect that quite a bit of this is inaccurate or out of date. For starters, LeBron James now holds the record for most All-Star games, not Kareem. That's a relatively major fact that hasn't been corrected. That may just be the tip of the iceberg. Generally speaking, I think Wikipedia does a poor job maintaining articles of this nature, and even if someone does some short-term cleanup, that effort won't be sustained over time. Zagalejo (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Wikipedia does a poor job maintaining articles of this nature ...: Yes, it's been tagged for months requesting more sources. Per WP:V:

  Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.

  There's nothing sourced left here that isn't already mentioned in the main bio, if unsourced content is removed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The other thing I don't like about this article is that it lists the people who broke Kareem's records, but in some cases, those players no longer hold the record, either. For example, multiple players have since surpassed Robert Horry's record for most career playoff games. The article misleadingly implies that Horry is the current record holder. Zagalejo (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to break the divide between editors arguing to Keep this article and those proposing a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The criteria of "career achievements" is entirely subjective, indiscriminate, and original synthesis. This page also fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. BusterD (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. "Entirely subjective, indiscriminate, and original synthesis"? Most (though not all) of the NBA records and former records section is not subjective nor synthesis. Those are officially recognized records. Perhaps 2/3 of that lengthy section is quite legit, while 1/3 is indiscriminate trash, but that's a matter for WP:CLEANUP. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the inclusion criteria of stats minutiae that's subjective, leading to the indiscriminate collection of anything merely true. Per the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy:

  To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.

  There is zero context or explanation. And if we cleaned up the unsourced content, we're left with a WP:CONTENTFORK of material already sourced in the bio. —Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to jump on (and agree with) merely true because this speaks to my intention. I have no argument with the subject's achievements themselves, and I concede their accuracy. IMHO the term "career achievement" is insufficiently specific to distinguish selected athletic STATS from any other body of work, barring sources which directly detail this subject's "achievements". It's bad page naming for reasons already better explained by User:Bagumba. BusterD (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I find the keep !votes to be fundamentally weak since they fail to ground their arguments in policies and notability guidelines, or furnish sources to demonstrate compliance with WP:NLIST. Conversely, the delete arguments are far more convincing since they generally analyze this page through the lens of policy (and all come from the mouths of former/current admins to boot). The sources don't do this page any justice either for establishing notability:
  • basketball-reference.com — not a secondary source, not SIGCOV ✗ Fail
  • nba.com — not an independent reference, that's Kareem's former employer ✗ Fail
  • Basketball Hall of Fame — they have a vested interested in promoting him since he was inducted into the Hall of Fame, see WP:COISOURCE ✗ Fail
  • Slam Online is an indiscriminate source since it offers a similar level of coverage for 50 players, not specifically focused on Kareem ✗ Fail

Left guide (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above, does not show notability . ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments since the 2nd relisting so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Editors interested in a possible Merge can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Same as previous AfD (Possibly malware, few and unreliable sources, written somewhat like an ad) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator. Additionally, KingRoot and Kingo Root may be different. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) (your nomination is your "vote", this could be seen as a duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, so Soft Deletion is not an option. To the nominator, your nomination is seen as your vote, please do not vote additional times.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep CNET from 2016 and DigitalTrends are reliable according to RSP. 1/4 of the content is devoted to the malware suspicions so I don't see how it's writen like an ad, nor is "possibly malware" a valid deletion rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per below, merging would also be good. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- This is a well known and popular app used to root a phone, it is listed on many sites. (KingRoot is a knockoff of KingoRoot) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a related software article, probably Rooting (Android), as was suggested in the first AfD five years ago. There's not really enough coverage of this to satisfy general notability guideline from what I can see. The main sources on the article currently are self-published and it seems that that may be difficult if not impossible to replace while keeping any content of note in the article. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you read the 2015 CNet article? It is decidedly not a primary source. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's really the only notable review though that I can see. I still just think that this could easily be covered in the Rooting (Android) article. Many of the other sources on the article seem to be unsuitable; several are just original research forum threads. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Only two are forum threads, one of which represents the entire forum’s position; the other one is indeed a problem. I’m not opposed to a merge as the article is indeed quite short, but I think that there are at least two good sources, the other one being DigitalTrends. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the first forum thread not constitute an inappropriate source/original research? Honest question, I would have thought you'd have to get a reliable secondary source reporting on that development instead of a mod on the forum itself. And Digital Trends is a fine source but Kingo is just a small part of that article. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don’t take my words as gospel, but XDA Developers is a pretty large and influential entity worthy of consideration as its own source. I don’t think it adds to notability, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Netherlands at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Volleyball. The Keep arguments were not able to adequately rebut the P&G-based arguments against a standalone page. Some Keep views were based solely on opposition to redirecting to Steven van de Velde, which never gained support anyway. Owen× ☎ 13:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Immers fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. The sources are more focused on Steven van de Velde than Immers. Dougal18 (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – I made a good faith effort to try and expand this earlier but Dougal18 is right, the sourcing is almost entirely about his connection to Steven van de Velde. They did win a match but I don't think that translates to a medal where WP:NOLYMPICS comes into play and even then that's presumptive notability. It's possible I'm not looking in the right places and the current coverage is just drowning out other aspects of this guy's career but I honestly haven't found anything. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Volleyball, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (& delete individual page). Athlete is not independently notable, which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Even the German page about him has no independent sourcing. All notable mentions in the media are connected to Steven van de Velde. Silvymaro (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I improved the article with a couple of his merits that are not related to van de Velde. Commonssense (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The improvements - two youth appearances - are the definition of routine coverage, and passing mentions relating to non-notability-establishing tournaments, at that. And only two, but even if there were three (bare minimum of continued coverage), it's not sigcov. Kingsif (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect even after the improvements my Commonsense this still lacks Notability as it only came from one source, which I still don't know if it is WP:RS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Steven van de Veldes article was a Keep and deemed notable per WP:GNG. This person is as well notable per good third party sources and Olympic appearance and sports career.BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the AfD is that Immers' connection to someone notable (van de Velde) does not make Immers notable - arguing that someone else is notable is not a !keep argument, let alone a strong one. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immers has now consistent top ten placements in the European Championships, World Championships and the Olympics, so he clearly belongs to a very narrow elite in his sport. His European championship title as a junior may not be enough in itself (I and BabbaQ have expanded the article considerably since most people here argued for redirect) but even that is important in the big picture, how consistent this player has been throughout his career. The argument to keep has nothing to do with the global infamy resulting from his association to van de Velde. As a beach volley player he is equally notable in his own right as van de Velde is in that regard. Commonssense (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to BabbaQ's argument that since Van de Velde has an article, Immers should. Your response, about how great you think he is and how much work you put into adding two lines to the article, is irrelevant to that. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does meet WP:SPORTCRIT, and has more coverage in Dutch. Geschichte (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Geschichte: Would you be able to link to some Dutch sources that discuss him in depth? Sources don't have to be in English but it helps to have actual links instead of "sources exist". Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose redirect: Matthew Immers has played on a high level with a number different people (such as Yorick de Groot, together with whom he won silver at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics). It is common in beach volleyball to play with multiple partners during ones career. To redirect him to one specific partner is not very helpful. In particular when that specific partners fame is based on the combination of being an Olympian and a convicted child rapists. There is no sports reason to redirect Immers to van de Velde rather than the other way around. The only reason would be that van de Velde is more famous due to being a convicted child rapists. Since Immers is not a convicted child rapists having a redirect that way seems like an (unintentional) character assassination. As per Geschichte and others I would prefer keep due to his results as a player. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposed redirect target is surely Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whilst that for sure is better than Steven van de Velde that is not an obvious target. It is only the competition that is most recent right now. Beach volleyball at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics would likely make more sense, since that is the global competition in which he won a medal. In general redirects are quite overused on Wikipedia in ways that are not very helpful. If not considered noteworthy a simple deletion would probably be better since then search tools can show any of the articles in which he is mentioned. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggested Van de Velde as the target since most of the coverage I could find was talking about them together and the article goes into how both of them scored. I'm open to a better target and I think Tbhotch's suggestion to redirect to Netherlands at the Olympics is the best idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC), edited 10:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you still consider that if the year was not 2024 and the Olympics hadn't just finished? I fail to see that the Olympics is an obvious redirect for someone that have achieved similar results in the World Championships etc. If you do not consider it noteworthy then why not just delete it? Search engines will still find the Olympics and other competitions he competed in (imho we are overusing redirects a lot, their importance is in guiding the user to pages where the article subject is handled in a more holistic way, the goal should not be to make editors happy about that one red link has been removed).

  With regards to media exposure etc. I would suggest searching something like [1], i.e. in Dutch and without van de Velde. Most people are mainly written about in their local language rather in English. Can even use something like [2] (with the time bit set to "Archives" to get rid of overexposure of the most recent events). Gunnar Larsson (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand Dutch so it'd help if you clarify if these are SIGCOV about Immers or simply passing mentions. If there is enough SIGCOV for GNG, I'm okay with changing my !vote to keep. My opinion on redirecting to the Olympics was because I was under the impression that was the highest level of competition he had competed in (previous comments mention the Youth Olympics and I did not notice the World Championships angle). If he truly isn't notable and he's known for both, I support deleting because the target would actually be ambiguous. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball. I struggle to see more that routine coverage and no coverage that is focused on the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gunnar Larsson. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Netherlands_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#Volleyball: I'm not seeing much coverage about this subject specifically in depth, rather most of the coverage mentioning him is about other people. Let'srun (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note that the team won a bronze medal in the Euros last week, which would increase their notability. Secondly, strongly oppose redirecting to Steven van de Velde per User:Gunnar Larsson. Imagine you are a volleyball player who won medals in the Youth Olympics and Europeans and reached the last 16 in the Olympics, and someone types in/clicks on your name in Wikipedia and they are redirected to an article that's about 80% about child rape. That's just a shite thing to do to someone who's only "crime" is playing ball with a convicted felon. - FakirNL (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the page was redirected, it'd probably be to Netherlands at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Volleyball given that was a obviously a more sensical target than Steven van de Velde. There is some question as to whether that target itself is too ambiguous (see above) but it's not an argument to keep by itself. Do you have any sources demonstrating SIGCOV of Immer's career? That's what matters. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a sentence about Immers' reaction to the Van de Velde controversy, which was covered in Dutch media. - FakirNL (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Were the sources primarily about Immers' reaction? I see that the article itself has been greatly expanded since the AfD and would be willing to change my vote to !keep if someone can verify that the coverage in that language is significant. No one has said that yet when I've asked, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Dutch sources I added are NOS, RTL, NU.nl, de Volkskrant and NRC, which are respectively the public broadcaster, the largest commercial broadcaster, the largest news website, and two respected quality newspapers. If that's what you mean by "significant"? - FakirNL (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just mean what's said at WP:SIGCOV. Obviously those are respected outlets but a lot of the English sources cited in the article have very little coverage about Immers as a person. If that's present in Dutch then I have no issues with this article being kept. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is one thing I don't really understand about WP:SIGCOV and the notability of sportspeople. If I look at the articles of the twelve beach volleybal players that did win a medal in the latest Olympics, the number of sources are (from high to low): 98, 34, 28, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1 and 1. Some articles hardly even mention they won a medal in the Olympics. But somehow Matthew Immers (with 21 sources) needs more coverage about him as a person? Aren't 95% of articles about sportspeople are basicly a list of tournament results? - FakirNL (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources for biographies are supposed to have more than "passing mentions". I do think that the current sources are getting closer to that bar of Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That's why I want to know if the Dutch sources have more than a sentence or two about Immers. It'd be enough for me to change my mind to keep. As for other sports articles being basically a list of tournament results, not all of these articles have actually been to AfD. Theoretically these biographies should meet WP:BASIC. There's kind of a long history of WP:SNGs being somewhat controversial and Wikipedians disagree with each other all the time. But that's why sometimes you get barebones biographies for people who've won a medal at the Olympics and not other people. Or someone hasn't taken the time to try and expand it (this article was two sentences around when this AfD started). As far as I'm aware, these other levels of competition he's competed in do not meet an SNG so WP:GNG is what I've been accessing this under. Does that make sense? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words or terms that have been trademarked or copyrighted (edit | talk | history | 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 declined a speedy A10 request as this list title implies it is meant to be different from List of generic and genericized trademarks. However, the only content here is the same elements. Furthermore, we do not have an article trademarked English words and terms, and the scope of this list is overly broad as pretty much any English word or term can be trademarked and many, many have. Whpq (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, many, many words have been trademarked within a particular sector, do not create an article that's duplicative on one side and limitless on the other. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think what the article creator was looking for is List of generic and genericized trademarks. The list of English words that have been registered as trademarks could go on for days; for example, I have a Brother brand printer on my desk, but Brother Industries' trademark registration is not meant to restrict the use of that term for male siblings. Meanwhile, several different companies have registered the word "Prince" as a trademark for use in industries as diverse as tennis equipment, pasta, and musical entertainment. I would guess that one could find thousands of common English words which have been registered as trademarks at one time or another. This particular article title is not needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I created the article from a request in WP:WPRL. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As an editor, you are expected to exercise your judgement in looking at a request and whether it makes sense; not just do whatever is requested. Why do you think it was a good idea to create this list? -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL there's a reason that request had been sitting there since 2015! Lots of bad ideas on that page, should probably be archived entirely. Reywas92^Talk 00:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I found the request at [3], which was made nine years ago by User:CayugaH2O, an editor who has not edited since 2020. From the request, which indicates that the requestor was looking for examples such as "apple" and "windows", it appears that they were not looking for List of generic and genericized trademarks, but rather examples such as "brother" and "prince" as I indicated above. There are still two problems. One is that User:TheNuggeteer wound up creating another version of List of generic and genericized trademarks rather than what CayugaH2O had requested. The other is that the list of words that have been trademarked, as I indicated, could go on for days. Just in the soap business, I could think of coast, dial, ivory, lava, and safeguard. And considering how many lesser-known trademarks there are as well as trademarks in non-consumer businesses, I think such a list would be unmanageably long. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bangladeshi films of 1999. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dujon Dujonar (edit | talk | history | 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:NFILM, without reviews in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG as well, coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and tabloid coverage disallowed per WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC) (invited nominator to do so in my DeproD edit summary; not opposed to Keep myself, but his is a standard alternative to deletion when sources exist and cast is notable. I am inviting users who find films/series not notable enough for a standalone page to always consider this possibility.)[reply]

  Didn't see that in your edit summary. Not opposed in principle to a redirect but I'd rather have it be stable via an AfD consensus than subject to a revert war. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would not characterize Prothom Alo, Bhorer Kagoj, Samakal, Somoy News, or Manab Zamin as tabloid coverage, but all of them make only passing mention of the film, and I could find no better sources, so I agree that it is not notable.

Redirect would be a good choice if I believed that the film might become notable in the future, but I don't. Wikipedia's internal search is much better than it used to be, so without a redirect it will return three lists that include the film and eight biographies of people involved in it. Readers can choose the result(s) they're most interested in.

Delete is the better choice, given that the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, and is only ineligible for G5 because it was then extensively edited by someone about whom it was concluded "There's certainly some UPE or meatpuppetry going on", even though they could not be linked by technical evidence to the same sockfarm. (They're currently indefed for advertising and promotion.) --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, consensus is clearly to remove the article. Will the outcome be to delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I am swayed by Worldbruce's first argument, that readers could select their preferred article via search, but it seems to me that they could do so just as easily and perhaps with better information structure at the Bangladeshi films list. The list names and links to the notable people involved, which makes it easier to navigate. Any useful or notable information could also be added to the list in 'notes', such as the composer's name in case readers were hooked by the soundtrack. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lifestyle brand. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol-intensive brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Icon brand & Cult brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "See also" in your nomination is somewhat confusing. For clarification, I would recommend changing it to something a long the lines of "I am also nominating these pages for the same reason" -1ctinus📝🗨 17:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus: Thanks!  Fixed Polygnotus (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: The one possibly reliable source I could find is this: [4], a scholarly article that uses the concept extensively. Additionally, I can find a Forbes Contributor article (which does not count for notability): [5], and an interview with the professor who coined the term: [6]. These are either unreliable or non-independent. If anyone could find one additional independent source, I would change my delete to a keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a suggestion on the AFD for Cult brand to Merge this article to that one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Lifestyle brand. Everywhere that I found (and it wasn't much) that uses this term it was considered a form of lifestyle brand. This article states that it is a super concept to lifestyle brand, which I question. What is here that is specific to Symbol-intensive brands could be added, perhaps as a section, in the lifestyle brand article. That article already includes much of the psychological aspects of branding. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Space program of Turkey. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable enough to have its own article. No objection if anyone merges it into Space program of Turkey as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Seems to meet GNG, various independent sources Lordseriouspig 20:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lordseriouspig: I don’t know Defense News. Hürriyet Daily News may well be reliable but you think Sabah (newspaper) is reliable? As Daily Sabah is listed as unreliable it seems unlikely. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Space program of Turkey, maybe merge in whatever cited portions are still notable. The article as-is is severely out of date, and I'm not even sure the title is appropriate — I cannot find any current sources referring to a "Turkish Space Launch System" or "Space Launch System of Turkey" (almost all query results there are Wiki clones). Recent work appears to be on a sounding rocket/micro-satellite launcher called "Mikro Uydu Fırlatma Sistemi / Micro Satellite Launching System", but I'm not sure there is enough English-language coverage to warrant splitting it into a separate article. Forum thread. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 18:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atsumari (edit | talk | history | 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 puzzle has been unsourced since 2009 and searching did not turn up any usable sources. It does not appear to pass WP:GNG. My prod saying the same thing was reverted without edit summary or improvement by User:SJD Willoughby. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clearly not notable - I also could not find a single reliable source. StartGrammarTime (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. No source cited on the article. No reliable source found online. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. There is a good chance this app doesn't even exist anymore. Bensci54 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Article is basic resume/cv type material. The references are either his employers, him, or brief mentions. Looking for GNG references, I took a closer look at number 2 (circa Aug 16, 2024) which is an interview of him and another person, and #14 which is a promo for an item on their website and content looks like a resume supplied by him North8000 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at the creator's talk page, sorry if I wasn't clearer. I picked those two sources to take a closer look at because they were the best possibilities for being GNG sources. The creator assumed that I was criticizing them and deleted them. Suggest that they be restored.North8000 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nom: this is a seriously ref-bombed article that doesn't have anything other than resume details, verified by passing mentions and by interviews with the subject about the shows he's worked on. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jonas Deichmann. Malinaccier (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Forrest Gump (edit | talk | history | 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 for the nickname of an athlete is not a notable topic that should be covered by Wikipedia as a standalone article. Furthermore, much activity related to this athlete on Wikipedia seems suspicious and/or excessive. YannickFran (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are all redirects to the article Jonas Deichmann because there simply is no reason to have all of these. They feel more like pollution than anything else.

JONAS DEICHMANN

Deichmann, Jonas

John Deichmann

Jonasdeichmann

Jon Deichman

Jonas Deichman

Jon Deichmann

Furthermore, a discussion is to be had on whether Cape to Cape (film), Crossing America (film) and The Limit is Just Me should exist as their own pages as they seem to not meet WP:NFP and should instead be merged into Jonas Deichmann, and consequentially, whether Template:Jonas Deichmann needs to exist. --YannickFran (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YannickFran: I've removed your AfD tags on those redirects, as redirect nominations belong at WP:RFD, not this venue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies and thank you for the help, I've nominated these there. YannickFran (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since I made the article, I will provide my reasoning without casting a vote.
  
  

1. Random nickname for an athlete is not a notable topic that should be covered by Wikipedia as a standalone article. I agree. It's different when the athlete is primarily known by the nickname and the nickname has its own history. This nickname and details surrounding it are featured in major news media in several different countries. Seems notable. I made the article to not clutter the main page. Also, Wikipedia articles about nicknames or pseudonyms are nothing unusual. From Eando Binder to Big Apple to The City That Never Sleeps (nickname) with many others.
   
   
2. About the other nomination (redirects). I made the redirects to improve the overall completeness and followed what is commonly done on other pages. Full explanation at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_16#JonasDeichmann
   
   
3. Strong disagree that the movies and template are somehow questionable, but that's a story for another day.

Småland, Sweden (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname does not have "its own history". At best this should be a redirect to a section of the Jonas Deichmann article. Note that of the examples you give, Eando Binder is the article about Earl Andrew Binder and not specifically about his nickname. That's just a case of WP:COMMON, the same reason why the article about Steven Paul Jobs is titled Steve Jobs. As for "Big Apple" and "The City That Never Sleeps": both are relevant for their marketing campaigns that eventually surrounded them and their wide use in culture, and "The City That Never Sleeps" specifically also doesn't refer to just 1 place and the article functions as a list, as well as other uses of that phrase. None of these examples are the same situation.

And unlike all of them, "German Forrest Gump" certainly does not meet the criteria for notability. Looking up possible sources for it, it seems very much like the article has pretty much exhausted any sources that are available online, many of which I'd hesitate to call "major news media". Note that 9 of the 12 sources on that article simply source an article just to pull a translation from it, rather than any actual information of value (I'd like to further point out that these 9 sources are included as source for the tranlsation of the word "German" and nothing else, which is extra ridiculous). Turning to Google, the first page of web search results consists for 50% out of Wikipedia/Wikimedia pages (and it doesn't get better on later pages). For another example to the threshold of notability of a nickname, note that King of Pop isn't its own page and is basically just mentioned in passage on Michael Jackson's article. You really cannot tell me "German Forrest Gump" - a nickname used by a literal handful of sources - is more notable than that.

As for the movies, I never said they were questionable. Their notability doesn't rise to the requirements for their own articles as per WP:NFP. When these articles are merged into Jonas Deichmann, it in turn would invalidate the existence of the template. But that's a story for merges, which is why none of them were nominated for deletion here. YannickFran (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, ATD Reasons for merging #2 as Wikipedia:REDUNDANT: Sorry, but a nickname on Wikipedia, if used in sources, can be covered in the article of the subject if there is one. In this case there already is an article so this might be a candidate for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A10. Most recent personal names have but one correct spelling for a particular individual, although presentation (use of initials, middle names, nicknames, etc.) can vary and still be correct. In these cases, it is best to use a recognizable form. I used bold on the word "nickname" to point it out. Nicknames would just be alternative names, if noteworthy. and would generally be given in boldface in the lead following the name as presented in the article title. Of course if a nickname or any other alternate name is more common that should be the name of the article.
  See also: Manual of Style/Lead section § Format of the first sentence, and § Bolding of title and alternative names
  • NOTE: if there are sourced alternate names, more than two, this can be covered in a "Names" or "Etymology" section. Redirects are only needed for alternate names one might search and not every possible name per . -- Otr500 (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jonas Deichmann. It's a plausible search term and mentioned on the article. -- asilvering (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructoboy (edit | talk | history | 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 should be deleted This is a BLP that is written by the subject (WP:YOURSELF) and is not notable (WP:NBLP). Subject is a minor streamer (~20k subscribers) and has several self-published gaming materials (all with under ~2,500 purchases).

Example: the main section "Dungeons & Dragons 5e" is just a table of self-published work. There are hundreds or thousands of such self-published works on the site link. Why is this one NBLP?

Example: the section "D&D Open Game License controversy" it is not clear how this subject is important to this event (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Open_Game_License).

Example: one of the sources is just the author being interviewed for a news story because he is a teacher.

Example: Eight of the sources are the author being interviewed because of an accident.

Example: "Pounds is a member of the Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity, and has a tattoo of The Triple T's on his right bicep." Why is this important?

Example: "Pounds credits the prevalence of right-wing misinformation about the Star Frontiers: New Genesis racism controversy and the depiction of the Hadozee race in Spelljammer: Adventures in Space to making him openly vocal about his progressive ideology and social issues in gaming.[22] [23]" None of the linked articles mention the subject. IgGiNzZ (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Entertainment, Internet, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In agreement with the nominator. Also note WP:NOTRESUME for the obvious reasons, plus WP:REFBOMB. The article tries to give the impression that the guy was mentioned in many reliable sources, but read carefully and the connections are third-hand at best. As one example, the statement about his expensive medical bills has a footnote to a general article about Obamacare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to non-notability and for refbombing as mentioned by nominator and doomsdayer520. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonk on the Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There may be reviews of this book; I couldn't find them, and that award, Ottawa Book Award, I am not convinced that a city-wide award automatically confers notability on a book. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a single review on newspapers.com (strangely already clipped). More reviews from Canadian publications on proquest ([7] [8] [9] [10]. This might also be a review but I don't have access. The Globe and Mail review is probably the best one, especially since it's a paper of record. All very Canadian but a non-terrible article could be built from this, and it's far over NBOOKs anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is the only book the author John-James Ford has ever written, so I think his article should be merged to this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: More than enough coverage above to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Multiple reviews to meet WP:NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kabiri (edit | talk | history | 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 seeing how they satisfy WP:NPOL. He only served as a "deputy of cooperative affairs in the Ministry of Cooperation, Labor and Social Welfare". Does not meet WP:GNG at best. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Iran. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the correct title would be Deputy Minister. This is backed up by Farsi sources, that his title was 'معاون وزیر'. Deputy Ministers of national govts are notable, and in this case also member of Steering Council of national govt. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure this is an NPOL pass - generally, presumed notability would be for cabinet-level posts, but as far as I know deputy ministers in Iran do not serve at cabinet level. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. An author with non notable literary works. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, Jordan, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mullen (edit | talk | history | 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 references other than external links to the subject's own sites/publications. Reads like a resume of her career, as in the list of grants, and an advert for her published works. No examination or analysis of her work and significance, if any, nor independent discussion of her relationship to the pantheon of modern poets/authors. A WP:BEFORE search turns up just her books and news reports of one incident in Fall, 2023, when she resigned in protest over the Israel-Hamas war. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. As far as third party, independent publications about the subject, they are mostly limited to the one event mentioned. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, California, and Iowa. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and keep: At least three books have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly, which passes WP:NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. Books published by university presses seems to clinch that. There are sources about her: like this (which is in the article), which solidifies her notability. Lamona (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities at the Eureka Stockade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Austria. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that The Eureka Encyclopaedia has various entries such as "Canadians at the Eureka Stockade" and "Italians at the Eureka Stockade" etc. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've heard the Eureka Rebellion described as arguably the best documented event in 19th century Australian history. Wikipedia doesn't seem to mind letting their readers take a deep dive into the subject of the American revolution: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Template:American_Revolution_sidebar. I always thought that's what sub articles are all about. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we really need some more feedback for this thread.

• Delete per Mztourist. Intothatdarkness 15:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of the Eureka Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Needs trimming, but such bibliography articles are usually alright for extensively-covered topics. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that it is well covered topic. We could trim the bibliography or we could triple the size of it actually. But all the really seminal sources are already there. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a handy article. I see that there are other similar bibliographies, such as the Bibliography of the American Revolutionary War. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be an easy keep if there is evidence presented that books about this topic have been discussed as a group. Have they? It seems notorious enough that it's possible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Topic passes WP:NLIST. Some examples of sources:
  • Collins, Rebecca, ‘Concealing the Poverty of Traditional Historiography: myth as mystification in historical discourse’, Rethinking History, Vol. 7, (2003), pp. 341-343, 356.
  • Cousen, Nicola, "The legend of Lalor's Arm: Eureka myths and colonial surgery", Victorian historical journal (Melbourne, Vic. : 1987), 2017-11, Vol.88 (2), pp. 212-234
  • Sunter, Anne Beggs, "The Apotheosis of Peter Lalor: Myth, Meaning and Memory in History" in Remembered Nations, Imagined Republics: Proceedings of the Twelfth Irish-Australian Conference, Galway, June 2002, Australian Journal of Irish Studies Vol. 4, (2004), pp. 94-104.
• Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is possibly the single most studied event in 19th Century Australian history. There appear easily identifiable multiple listings of materials related to the event: "Bibliogrpahy of Eureka" Australian Historical Studies (1953), Book - Newspaper clippings, Eureka Stockade Newspaper Clippings, 1923-2015, Federation University Historical Collection, Eureka Stockade: as reported in the pages of The Argus newspaper / compiled by Neil Evans and Mary Cannon (1994) ISBN:0730641406. Satisfies WP:NLIST. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral 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)

No lasting notability for this election, fails WP:NEVENT. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, Politics, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not have any lasting coverage, unlikely redirect to anything. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CityDisc (edit | talk | history | 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 seem WP:N. I found very few reliable sources of information for this chain. TryAgainSooner (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. TryAgainSooner (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, and Companies. C F A 💬 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some hits for this place on Swiss newspaper archives. Haven't done a more in depth search yet but here is one piece that isn't terrible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is more often spelled with a space or a hyphen (City Disc or City-Disc). This seems to be, or at least was, a not insignificant Swiss company. I added several sources to the page; there are a lot more hits but I find these three sources to be the best attesting of its notability: [11] [12] [13]

One of those sources is from Le Nouveau Quotidien as well which at the time was one of the only two non-regional standard Francophone newspapers in Switzerland (later Le Temps) so that probably satisfies the broad audience aspect of N:CORP, imo. I am not particularly well acquainted with the company notability criteria, however. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it was big back in the day (when CD stores still were a thing). Not surprising that little results can be found in recent sources, but there are plenty of sources already in the article, as well as some brought up by other editors here, that show that there is much more coverage to be found with a little more digging. Definitely meets WP:NCORP already with the sources at hand. Broc (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One more source from the de.wiki article (now linked): [14] Broc (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Broc To defend the nominator here, it was entirely unsourced prior to this AfD, I added several things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  lol oops I misread your statement. In any case the dewiki source helps, thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clearly to delete, with only the page creator (who also appears to have acknowledged COI issue) opposing. Given the promotional nature, retention of the article's history does not seem useful. Separate creation of a redirect might be permitted, although no compelling argument was made that it is likely to be needed. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced. No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless an editor can find reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to this book. I tried and couldn't. Cullen328 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from a reply elsewhere that this "is just one of 461,644 pages that have been marked as "needing additional references"" so it seems a rather pointless exercise to delete this one and leave the other 461,643 pages alone.

As the author of the article, I have no strong feelings about its deletion or not - the only effect of removing it is to make Wikipedia ever-so-slightly less useful as a reference tool, and if your objective in life is to weaken Wikipedia's usefulness then by all means go ahead. Philsp (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philsp, inappropriate articles are being deleted continuously. Roughly 600,000 articles have been deleted through the Articles for deletion process, and we have two other deletion processes as well. Our objective is to ensure that articles comply with our policies and guidelines. This one clearly doesn't. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I am no fan of eugenics and can only mourn those 600,000 articles you have deleted, many of which would, I am sure, have been very useful contributions to Wikipedia - certainly more so than myriads of articles that DO meet "your" policies and guidelines. Philsp (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have written elsewhere that "This is a book that I created and published". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fredric Brown bibliography#Mysteries, where it is listed. I searched all the places I could, newspapers.com, gale, proquest, archive.org/google books, got nothing. It is listed there though and it provides context as to what exactly this was collecting, so why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable self-published compilation of interest only to completists and Milwaukee SF readers like myself. The creator of the article is also the compiler/publisher, and does not understand that Wikipedia is not the ISFDb. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fredric Brown bibliography § Mysteries per WP:COI/WP:NBOOK and PARAKANYAA. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of archaeology journals#Trowel. Malinaccier (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trowel (journal) (edit | talk | history | 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 student publication that fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. I cannot find sufficient sources to establish even the basic facts (like whether this student-run journal is even still operating). The only source I can find, that contains anything at all, is the publication's own (wordpress) website. And that hasn't been updated since mid-2019. Five years ago. Where is the indication that this short-lived(?) journal is "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", or "frequently cited by other reliable sources", or "historically important in its subject area"? Where is the coverage in independent/reliable/verifiable sources? I certainly can't find any. An entry in the "Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals" says that it "does not reach the inclusion threshold" (as its distribution/circulation is too low?). It is also hard to overlook that the article was seemingly created by a COI/SPA contributor (in quasi-promotional format about its 10th edition).... Guliolopez (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Found nothing except a bit on something about theses they publish which is not helpful or sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're going to redirect anywhere it should be the publisher University College Dublin. Redirect-to-lists for journals are annoying. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The journal isn't mentioned in University College Dublin, and I doubt it would be due weight to add mention of it; it's already mentioned in list of archaeology journals. Could you expand on why redirects to lists are a bad thing for journals, beyond being "annoying" to you? – Joe (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They're often used as citations (though this one would probably not be) and a blue link from that to a list is misleading. I also question the utility of it. It doesn't really add anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to list of archaeology journals as an ATD. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Hi @Joe. While I like a good WP:ATD-R as much as the next editor (perhaps even more so), I don't think I can support it here. I mean, what (reliable/independent) sources are we relying upon for even the basics in the proposed target entry? Even its placement, in the "active publications" section is questionable IMO. As, per Talk:Trowel (journal), there is nothing to indicate that it is "active"? The last entry (on the subject's own primary/wordpress website) indicates that an (PDF/online only?) edition was last released in 2019. And, even UCD's own library hasn't seemingly received a copy of it since 2018? ("Latest Received: 2018 v.19"). That we have to interpret from, effectively, the lack of sources or mentions is far from ideal. I'd question whether we even have sufficient sourcing to support the entry WP:WITHIN the proposed target/list (certainly, to my eye, there is nothing to support its inclusion in the "active" section...) Guliolopez (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The list states the journal's name, publisher, year of first publication, and ISSN. Which of those is not verifiable? We don't need independent sources for a redirect. If the journal is no longer published, then it can just be moved to the other section of the list. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) The journal is a reliable primary source for its own contents and does include publication details: [15] [16]. In any event, a search for "Trowel"+"department of archaeology"+dublin rapidly brings up citations in GBooks, book reviews [17] [18] and other commentary [19]. WP:WITHIN is an essay arguing against the creation of standalone articles, not redirects. If the entry is in the wrong section of the list, then either move it to the correct section, or merge the two sections (the second section is very short, and the division into sections makes the list more "dynamic" than it perhaps needs to be). James500 (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of archaeology journals per Joe Roe. The journal is included in the list, so it is the appropriate target. A row anchor should be included in the table. Linking to a row anchor is not misleading. James500 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A poorly sourced list of largely unrelated statistics. No idea why it jumps from 1946 to 1997, no idea where the number of snowstorms comes from, no idea why we would add the number of tropical cyclones (extreme weather events) to the number of tornadoes (for the most part very local, very minor events) and not count e.g. the number of rainfall-induced floods instead. While comparing the number of US tornadoes or the number of cyclones year by year is done and may be useful, this grouping of these statistics in a kind of novel synthesis with very unclear inclusion rules doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic. WP:NOTSTATS and so on. Fram (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Fram (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I never thought the article should exist. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably a violation of WP:SYNTH too.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --_ZZ^Z'S 16:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it really, really should not exist. OhHaiMark (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Someone can still create a redirect if they think it worthwhile. Sandstein 15:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth Vellalacheruvu (edit | talk | history | 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 previously deleted for unambiguous promotion, recreated as draft and unilaterally moved to mainspace. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NJOURNALIST. Available sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARY or WP:YOUTUBE links (or both). The handful of other sources are limited to tabloid coverage excluded under WP:SBST and questionable coverage under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommending a redirect to TV9 Telugu as an AtD but given this history of this page (BLAR immediately reverted) we will need an AfD verdict to make it stick. OK with outright deletion as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to TV9 Telugu - Nothing I'm finding is about him; it's just reports and interviews he participated in. (string:"rajinikanth vellalacheruvu") —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There seems to be no independent source with significant coverage among the 32 sources cited in the article. Some are self-published, i.e. from TV9, YouTube videos and interviews hosted or anchored by the subject. There is also some coverage of his tweets, but nothing substantial about his work as a journalist in reliable and published third-party sources. The article is poorly written, so it's not worth saving its page history as a redirect. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Sir

  He is very noted Journalist in Telugu states, He is know for his interviews with Andhra Pradesh and Telangana state Chief ministers and opposition leaders. He has done interview of Prime Minister of India , Shri Narendra Modi before 2024 General Elections. It worth to keep his Wikipedia page. Please reconsider your decsion 171.76.87.55 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Conducting interviews is not evidence of notability; notability is not WP:INHERITED from the subjects of an interview. There's no WP:SIGCOV of this individual. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Interviews provide zero notability whether as subject or interviewer (connexion to subject). We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Vellalacheruvu at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and stringent editorial oversight. I haven't found anything of the sort. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. In fact, many of the sources are primary. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG. MohReddy (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 15:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yet another remnant of the considerably looser inclusion standards of 2010. The apparent lack of any known programming information would certainly suggest the lack of any non-FCC coverage here, significant or not. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Pierre White Jr (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP. This person seems to only be notable for being the first man to be evicted on any UK series of Big Brother. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet, but I did consider redirecting it myself after its failed DYK nomination (I created the article and it was originally much longer). I would say there's more than enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage of him, though I wonder if WP:NPF applies. Pinging @UndercoverClassicist, RoySmith, Vaticidalprophet, Theleekycauldron, AirshipJungleman29, and Freedom4U: for their input.--Launchballer 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• At least on the current sources provided, there's a question mark over WP:NOTNEWS for me -- lots of sources, but all ephemeral tabloid stuff rather than any serious interest in the person himself. I suppose there's an argument that the sheer volume of such coverage implies that someone is interested in him, but I'd need convincing at the moment that those interested people include enough sources that would clear WP:RS (and perhaps WP:NINHERITED to boot). At the moment, I don't think I have a vote either way, but that may change as this discussion develops. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'll just quote myself from the DYK nomination because I think it applies just as well here as it did there: I'm not a fan of these types of articles. I don't know if I can justify this on any policy grounds, but IAR yuck. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ugh. I've just taken the time to read the entire article. It's worse than my initial impression. Either of WP:CRIME or WP:BLP would work for a policy-based justification. Please make this go away. RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage seems rather unencyclopedic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Of the 5 references, 3 are his own websites, 1 is a two sentence database type listing of him, and the other is announcement of release of two items. Could not find anything better in a search. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, the release of "two items" are books of poetry. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The name is too common to find anything about this person. I pull up businessmen with a same name, nothing about a poet. Sourcing now used in the article doesn't help, as the nom explains. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Didn't find any non-primary WP:SIGCOV. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds United F.C.–Millwall F.C. rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete. The article exaggerates the relationship between two teams who have played each other only 38 times in the English Football League (EFL). They have never met in either of the FA Cup or the EFL Cup. The only time they met outside of standard league fixtures was in a two-legged playoff semi-final in 2009. The article says this supposed rivalry began in October 2007 when Millwall fans went on the rampage in Leeds. As everyone knows, Millwall fans are notorious for rampage and one incident in Leeds does not automatically create an acknowledged "rivalry".

The only London clubs with which Leeds have had any kind of "rivalry" are Chelsea, Arsenal, and to some extent Spurs. As far as matches against Millwall are concerned, they mean nothing more than a match against the likes of Charlton Athletic, Leyton Orient, QPR, etc.

The teams met twice last season in the EFL Championship and I am not aware of any sources which reported those games in the sense of a rivalry. See the [20] and [21] BBC reports which do not convey any special connection between the clubs—unlike when Liverpool play Manchester United, for example. That is because this supposed rivalry does not exist.

If the article has any use as a head-to-head history of matches played by the two clubs, then it should be renamed and given a fresh perspective to provide a true context. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably keep Yep, it's more of a head to head with routine coverage, yes Millwall will always be Millwall and the supporters do tend to get a reputation, however they have had a little bit of a rivalry at times. I am inclined to keep the article, I feel there is enough on there to show what it's is referring too, especially since the rise of hooliganism. And the article is incredibly well sourced. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree a lot of work has gone into it, including citations, but the sources are of the head-to-head and routine match coverage variety. There is little if anything in the sources that justifies the presentation of this subject as a keen rivalry which is evident whenever these teams meet. Rivalries are usually derby matches as in Old Firm, Merseyside, Manchester, or North London. For two teams this far apart, we need much more than a couple of hooliganism incidents and one play-off semi-final. Leeds missed promotion last season by losing to Southampton in the playoff final following another defeat by Saints at the end of the league season. On that basis, it could be argued that there is a Leeds/Southampton rivalry. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Millwall and Leeds managers, and the former Millwall chairman consider it a rivalry, see 1, 2, 3, and 4. The local newspapers for the clubs called it a rivalry, see 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The nominator PearlyGigs claims, "The teams met twice last season in the EFL Championship and I am not aware of any sources which reported those games in the sense of a rivalry." Yet, the second result on Google for a 'Leeds Millwall rivalry' search is a NY Times article written on 17 September 2023, covering the rivalry in depth after the first meeting in the 2023–24 season. I have now added this reference to the wiki, as it gives a great history of why they are rivals.

Leeds rivalry with Millwall is much more current than their rivalry mentioned with Chelsea, which seems to have been defunct since the 1980s. Leeds and Chelsea have played nine times in the last 20 years. Leeds and Millwall have played 30 times over the same period, and their rivalry is far more relevant. There is a Channel 5 tv documentary called CCTV Cities which covers the rivalry from the perspective of West Yorkshire police, who consider Millwall fans the hardest to police because of the rivalry.

PearlyGigs only referenced two random BBC articles and their personal opinion as a reason for deletion of a Wikipedia article. The article is not exagerrated and is well referenced from both sides of Leeds and Millwall. I have added more references too, including quotes from Leeds and Millwall managers.TheLostBoy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make sure that the article has extensive sourcing to verify an assertion (i.e., that there is a rivalry) which was always likely to be challenged.

The choice of the two BBC articles was not random, by the way. BBC match reports are generally high quality, compared with tabloid rubbish, and they do tend to set the scene. If you read any BBC report on a Liv/ManU match, you will soon be aware if you didn't already know that those two teams are playing for bragging rights as well as points. The BBC reports on last season's Leeds/Millwall matches are routine coverage only, no different from the reports of Leeds' matches against Cardiff, QPR, Stoke, whoever. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last two BBC articles on Chelsea vs Leeds makes no mention of a rivalry, 1, 2. Does that mean there isn't one? Heavily policed fixtures with changed kick-off times rarely have incidents now. You ignored the NY Times article on the history of the rivalry by Phil Hay, a local Leeds journalist who covered the club for 18 years.

Also, with your reasoning regarding far apart rivalries, the Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.–Crystal Palace F.C. rivalry should be deleted since the whole article is basically H2H stats with minimal citations on why they are rivals. This article does have extensive sourcing about multple incidents throughout the last 20 years, not just hooliganism or a play-off semi. See Istanbul chant, Saville chant, Ankergren assault. There is more and a ton of stuff online about the rivalry. I'll add when I have time. TheLostBoy (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll leave it with you. By the way, our "rivalries" with ManU and Chelsea really do belong in the Revie Era. I would always maintain that our greatest rival of those years was Liverpool, but Revie was a close friend of Bill Shankly so it gets downplayed. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. Following recent edits, the article now has sufficient sourcing to justify the subject-matter so I'm happy for it to be kept. Could someone please do the necessary case closure? Thank you, TheLostBoy, and let's hope for a good game in November. I think Burnley and Coventry will be the teams to beat this time, and perhaps the Baggies. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Deleted as WP:G5, more at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwinug. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persija Jakarta–Persiraja Banda Aceh rivalry (edit | talk | history | 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 see nothing here that shows WP:NRIVALRY, this is just a head to head again. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Given mass nominations of a dozen of these articles separately, there has been little to no engagement with these deletion discussions. Thus, I am not convinced that relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Malinaccier (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Milan (Superleague Formula team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a drivers' signings, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Given mass nominations of a dozen of these articles separately, there has been little to no engagement with these deletion discussions. Thus, I am not convinced that relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Malinaccier (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiacos CFP (Superleague Formula team) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a driver's crash and his medical update, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that all of the SF team pages should remain, as a usual summary of the performances, regardless that the series lasted only 3-4 years. Are you suggesting that all of the A1 Grand Prix country team pages are also not notable? Officially Mr X (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not notable for an encyclopedia. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why should they be deleted? It was a major event, an attempt by many well-known European teams to expand into motorsport.https://www.protothema.gr/car-and-speed/racing/article/72231/superleague-formula-phre-ton-teliko-o-olympiakos-video/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montigliani (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many media covering the event https://www.gpro.net/gb/TeamProfile.asp?ID=278, https://superleagueformula.wordpress.com/who-en/clubs-en/club2-en/, https://www.speedsport-magazine.com/motorsport/formula-level1/superleague-formula/2010/photo-sf-team-olympiacos-piraeus-gu-racing--panoz-dp09b-menard-jani-17489_-_17489.html Montigliani (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and this https://www.autosport.com/general/news/european-super-league-when-motorsport-had-its-own-superleague-formula/6369035/ Montigliani (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) ltbdl☃ (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable: Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, and Ossie Davis (edit | talk | history | 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 general notability guideline. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Warrington Hudlin: No significant coverage, it is only mentioned in the obituaries of its three subjects. Redirect to the moderator. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC) —- Keep per Cunard. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since this is an important film featuring four important people in conversation, and has not been officially released since it's first airing. I added a few sources I found based on a very quick search. There seem to be more. AppleInYourEye (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AppleInYourEye: those don't contribute to notability, they're movie databases. ltbdl☃ (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AppleInYourEye: See WP:INHERITED. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Warrington Hudlin or to List of African American films of the 2010s#2015 (where it is not listed yet), might be a good solution, I agree.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)(changing to Keep, per Cunard, thanks.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Sragow, Michael (2005-02-13). "A bittersweet look back at multi-talented Ossie Davis. With Van Peebles, Parks, he pioneered black filmmaking". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Davis the filmmaker occupies the center of tonight's Black STARZ premiere, Unstoppable: A Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, and Ossie Davis. ... Both personally and professionally, the interviewer, Warrington Hudlin, sparks more with the irreverent Van Peebles and the glamorous Parks than the sage, statesmanlike Davis. After all, Hudlin was an impressionable kid when Shaft and Sweetback produced the kind of macho fantasy figures irresistible to schoolboys. ... But every time the conversation loses focus or momentum, Davis picks up the slack. He's the one who pins down his puckish colleague Van Peebles as "the spirit of Brer Rabbit," able "to avoid logic and common sense and still show up." It's Davis who most forcefully gives Parks credit for breaking the creative color barrier in Hollywood and proving the vitality of the untapped African-American audience."

  2. "Did You Know? Gordon Parks Almost Directed a Film Based on Pushkin's Life + Other Revelations (Video)". Blavity. 2014-01-03. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.

     The article notes: "Titled Unstoppable: A Conversation With Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks and Ossie Davis, the documentary aired on the Black STARZ! network in early 2005, a week after Ossie Davis died. It’s an intimate, candid portrait of 3 of our most treasured film artists together, on screen, as they discuss their extraordinary careers, including the myriad of issues they faced, their struggles and triumphs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is the only existing filmed interview with these 3 legends, together, in the same room, at the same time! This is huge, and something everyone must watch – especially if you’re interested in black cinema and its history. ... Also featured in the documentary are commentary contributions from Reginald Hudlin, Julie Dash, Ruby Dee, Nelson George, and Mario Van Peebles."

  3. Bianculli, David (2005-02-10). "Blacks in Film & TV Come into Focus". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.

     The article notes: "Sunday night at 8, the Black STARZ network premieres an hour-long discussion special called “Unstoppable: A Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks & Ossie Davis,” gathering the three men who, among their many other accomplishments, were the first black men to direct Hollywood movies. Davis’ death last week makes “Unstoppable” all the more valuable. But it’s an instructive and entertaining visit with three wise old show-biz veterans. The interviewer is filmmaker Warrington Hudlin, whose credits as a producer (“House Party,” “Boomerang”) aren’t quite on the level of the pioneering directorial work of his cinematic idols: Van Peebles’ “Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song,” Parks’ “Shaft” and Davis’ “Cotton Comes to Harlem. Hudlin makes clear, though, just how all three influenced him, and his questions – some reverent, some blunt – elicit strong responses. The three men end up entertaining both themselves and the TV audience. ... All three talk of slights endured and women loved, of civil rights and Hollywood wrongs, of unexpected breaks and imposing responsibilities."

  4. "African-American film-directing pioneers look back". Newsday. 2005-02-19. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Last year, one of those later filmmakers, Warrington Hudlin, interviewed the pioneer trio together in New York. "Unstoppable: A Conversation With Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks and Ossie Davis," is being aired this month on Black Starz (available on Long Island on Cablevision's iO digital service; in Queens, on Time Warner's DTV). The three filmmaking veterans were not initially the intended subjects of the program, producer-director John Lewis told Newsday. "We were going to concentrate on the young African-Americans in Hollywood today," he said. ..."

  5. "TV to observe Black History Month". Visalia Times-Delta. Cox News Service. 2005-01-31. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: ""Unstoppable: A Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks and Ossie Davis" (Black Starz, Feb. 13): An hourlong special in which filmmaker Warrington Hudlin ("House Party," "Boomerang") sits down with three highly influential "renaissance men" of cinema to discuss their achievements and experiences in filmmaking, photography, writing, producing and acting."

  6. "Ossie Davis speaks on documentary Sunday". Quad-City Times. Associated Press. 2005-02-11. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "In 1969 and 1970, they became the first black men to direct Hollywood movies. This Sunday, they meet for the first time onscreen in the documentary "Unstoppable: A Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks and Ossie Davis." Moderated by filmmaker Warrington Hudlin, it airs at 7 p.m. on Black Starz!. "Unstoppable" marks one of Davis' last public interviews. He died on February 4 at age 87."

  7. Catlin, Roger (2005-02-12). "Ossie Davis' Last Interview; 'Lackawanna Blues' On HBO". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Funeral services for actor Ossie Davis are set for today in New York. So his comments in the roundtable of black filmmakers, his last filmed appearance before his death Feb. 4 at age 87, take on a special significance. Despite the limitations of gushing interviewer Reginald Hudlin, there are some nuggets of information to be found in the unexpectedly timely "Unstoppable: A Conversation With Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks and Ossie Davis" (Black Starz, 8 p.m.)."

  8. Mason, M.S. (2005-02-11). "Tuning in: On TV this week". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2024-08-19.

     The article notes: "Unstoppable: A Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, and Ossie Davis (Black Starz, 8–9:05 p.m.): These men are legends in their own time, and their careers have broken down racial barriers while expanding artistic horizons for generations to come. This exceptional documentary gives us an inside look at the workings of Hollywood from the perspective of African-American actors, directors, and writers—all of whose lives were influenced by the three pioneers featured."

  9. Fearn-Banks, Kathleen (2009). The A to Z of African-American Television. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-8108-6832-8. Retrieved 2024-08-19 – via Internet Archive.

     The article notes: "Unstoppable: A Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks and Ossie Davis (Black Stars, February 13, 2005). Van Peebles, Parks, and Davis, the first black men to direct Hollywood feature films, discussed issues, struggles, and triumphs of their careers. Younger directors-Julie Dash, Mario Van Peebles, Reginald Hudlin, and others-provided tributes to the trio."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Unstoppable: A Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, and Ossie Davis to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cunard: this is exceptional work. I may have to get myself a Newspapers.com subscription. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Turkic-Azerbaijani 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)

Synthetic topic: Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, and there's nothing here that isn't better placed somewhere either on Azerbaijani language, Oghuz languages, or Old Turkic. The roughly analogous Proto-Germanic–English connections article would surely seem absurd. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Remsense. I do think some of the text could be rehomed, but the current article is WP:SYNTH and destined to stay that way since the topic is premised on a historical category error. Botterweg14 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lifestyle brand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Icon brand & Symbol-intensive brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as this article is mostly OR and its topic is a sub-category of Symbol-intensive brand, above. If that article is kept, I could support a partial merge of this article with that one. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Changing my vote to merge with Lifestyle brand as suggested below, since these concepts all seem to be special cases of that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lifestyle brand. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove all OR and other unsourced material. BoraVoro (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @BoraVoro: What will be left? Only a dictionary definition. WP:NOTDICT Polygnotus (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  good question. I agree with NOTDICT guideline. BoraVoro (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 09:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. And to reiterate comments made on the previous closer's Talk page, a no-consensus close is generally inappropriate for non-admin closure. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seneb-Neb-Af (edit | talk | history | 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 only find sources and content unduly taking about mastaba. If there should be ATD, then redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: mastaba is not an appropriate redirect target, as he is not mentioned there. It's clear that he's only notable as the person who was buried in his mastaba, though, so the AfD discussion here should centre on whether Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af is notable (we can rename the article after the AfD if so). -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, thanks for that, Asilvering. I think we should redirect this article somewhere for now since Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af hasn't been created yet. Is there any target you can think of? I wouldn't support renaming because the article is a mess; lacks sources and sufficient context. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mastaba is a generic term for a type of tomb. Redirecting there would make no sense. It could be mentioned at Dahshur#Tombs and cemeteries, though. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I like this target but how is it connected? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's where the tomb of Seneb-Neb-Af is. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if having a tomb dedicated/made by/for someone establishes their notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your comment. We know it belongs to him; it's got his name on it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SafariScribe, it's much better to respond to comments as a reply rather than rewriting your initial talk page comment. To reply to your new comment: XOR'easter is not making any kind of claim about Seneb-Neb-Af's notability. They're saying that the tomb could be mentioned in the article Dashur, since that's where the tomb is. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh! Danke. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear on my stance, I think the tomb could be mentioned there, but that it's not so important or well-reported (at this point) to be worth doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Okay, having looked into this a bit more, I don't think we should redirect this at all, since this is a very new finding that has only just been reported on in popular press. We don't even have a site report yet as far as I can tell? I don't think a mention is due on Dashur, and I don't think anyone searching for this name will be well-served by a redirect, either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closure was contested, see my talk page. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Of the two Keep views, one proposes merging into a nonexistent page or deleting if the target doesn't exist, and the other admittedly relies on ignoring our guidelines. This leaves us with a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable award. References are all announcements of winners and the majority are unreliable, falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate significant coverage that talks about the reward itself. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move: It looks like these should be written as "RedInk Awards". I don't see WP:NEWSORGINDIA really applying here: These are awarded by the Mumbai Press Club, so any reporting is unlikely to be paid. Coverage of almost any journalism award is going to be a little iffy on independence due to sources written by journalists with personal and organisational interests, memberships, and possibly voting participation (although these ones are juried). If the Mumbai Press Club had an article -- and I'm not sure it should -- I'd be happy with a merge to section. In the absence of that ATD, because there is post-event reporting in national sources and the awards presenters have included a Chief Justice of India, a State Governor, a State Chief Minister, and a federal Minister (indicating a particular level of repute)[22][23][24][25][26], and it's reasonable for the awards to [continue to] be listed at recipients' articles and this list article facilitates interlinking, I'm landing on retention (possibly slight WP:IAR). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a good redirect as an WP:ATD but unfortunately one does not exists. "Press Trust of India" and "News Express Service" bylines fit the definition of NEWSORGINDIA 100% though. I am wondering which ones you feel do not fall under that criteria as I would be happy to go back and look (I may have missed something). I think it would be more of WP:ATA as opposed to WP:IAR. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The only "keep, but..." assertion is admittedly a mere inference. I don't see a clear move target (barring page creation). On the merits, the sources just aren't there. If they were they'd have been presented over the last month. Lacking independent diverse reliable sources directly detailing this subject, delete (not any atd). BusterD (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: , temporarily, and merge into Mumbai Press Club. Delete if that article is not written. Awards can’t be notable if the awarding body is not notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austral Líneas Aéreas destinations (edit | talk | history | 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:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2011, but the part that is sourced is sourced to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like airlineroute.net, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]