Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 31

< August 30 September 01 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technitium DNS Server

[edit]
Technitium DNS Server (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)

Listed "sources" are mailing lists, blogs, etc., nothing reliable and independent. Upon searching, I cannot find anything better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 31 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! 23:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Benin, Moscow

[edit]
Embassy of Benin, Moscow (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. Zero sources. AusLondonder (talk) 23:16, 31 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. I see a consensus to Delete. Editors might consider creating a Redirect to the ministry she co-founded. I was surprised to read that their church has a reported seating capacity of 100,000 people. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Paul-Enenche

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:01, 31 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. I'm sorry for the way this discussion ended as I think there is a potential for a fruitful discussion on Nigerian media sources. Reliability can depend on the context, I know there is media in the U.S. that is considered reliable unless the subject is politics and then the source is considered partisan. I assume that is what the nominator is getting out, that some of the Nigerian sources are reliable except when it is BLP in which case the coverage could be seen as promotional. I hope further discussion, with cool heads, can continue on an appropriate talk page. Thanks to all editors who participated thoughtfully despite the socks weighing in, too. Please keep an eye out for the recreation of this article which has happened at a number of similar page titles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kelblizz

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

This is very much A7-able, but let's look at it together. This article has a long history of sockpuppetry, and while not the grounds of this nomination, the same problems from the 2019 AfD persist. This article simply does not tell us why Kelblizz is a notable disc jokey, just like we had DJ YK Mule. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICIAN, or WP:GNG for having too many (if not all, see analysis below) churnalism, non-INDEPENDENT and non-RS pieces.



Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vanderwaalforces
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://thenationonlineng.net/meet-dj-kelblizz-the-nigerian-dj-breaking-limits-with-melodic-sounds/ No Way promotional piece from the reliable The Nation (per WP:NGRS) No We can't rely on a piece that is this promotional. No Sadly, this does not provide WP:SIGCOV on details we can add in an encyclopedia for him but rather promotion and praises. ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/07/i-want-to-contribute-to-growth-of-afrobeats-dj-kelblizz/ No Promotional piece from the marginally reliable Vanguard (per WP:VANGUARD). Also, has statements that make it clear that it is very much dependent on the subject. No We can't rely on a piece that is this promotional, lacks a byline and comes from a marginally reliable source per WP:VANGUARD. No Ditto The Nation. ✘ No
https://thenicheng.com/meet-dj-kelblizz-the-dj-extending-a-new-era-of-good-music/ No Has statements that make it clear that it is very much dependent on the subject, definitely coming from one who knows Kelblizz very well, likely himself. No Source is okay, but we can't rely on a piece that clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. ~ Ditto. ✘ No
https://theeagleonline.com.ng/dj-kelblizz-storms-global-music-world-with-lyrics-support-for-artists/ No This is pure churnalism. Has statements that make it clear that it is very much dependent on the subject, definitely coming from one who knows Kelblizz very well, likely himself. No Source is okay, but we can't rely on a piece that clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. No Does nothing but praises and promotions, not much of a WP:SIGCOV pass for the subject. ✘ No
https://sundiatapost.com/nigerian-disc-jockey-dj-kelblizz-voice-out-about-goals-to-excellence/ No Another pure churnalism. Overly promotional puff. No Source is okay, but we can't rely on a piece that clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. ~ Ditto. ✘ No
https://thewillnews.com/why-nigerian-artistes-excel-in-global-music-than-others-in-africa-dj-kelblizz/ No This one is easy, clearly an interview. No Source is okay, but we can't rely on a piece that clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. No This is him talking about other things, and not about himself. ✘ No
https://thenicheng.com/dj-kelblizz-strides-into-electronic-dance-music-with-driven-purpose/ No Promotional puff and pure churnalism. No Source is okay, but we can't rely on a piece that is overly promotional in nature and clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. No not much of a WP:SIGCOV for the subject. ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/08/29/dj-kelblizz-nigerian-leading-dj-delivering-evablazing-sounds/ No Promotional puff and pure churnalism. I also have serious suspicions here on why this was published in the newspaper on 29 August and was used in this Wikipedia article that same day. No Source is okay, but we can't rely on a piece that lacks a byline, is overly promotional in nature, and clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. Yes Ditto. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
40k followers on youtube, but only has 3 videos, two from two yrs ago, one from 3 mths ago. Tiktok has a whole 600 followers [2]. This person isn't known to the public, simply based on the lack of social media virality. This is likely an attempt at PROMO.Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, This subject is a Disc Jockey and not a musician, DJs are notable for the event and tour they cover, the mixes, they make for the public and in events, article meet GNG, can you see the assessment? For someone to give such assessment it means the person just wants to prove a point and all I see is that it’s a total garbage and probably this nomination isn’t assuming good faith, from the history of this article, this page was undeleted and sock was addressed, same user @Vanderwaalforces request for deletion. All the source I see are from reliable sources and independent of the subject, a lot of people have written about this subject, I don’t see any reason why the nominator calls all of the sources a promo? not all DJs drops songs on streaming platforms and social media has nothing to count for notability rather having multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. 105.116.7.104 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he has no coverage in RS and his music seems to have no critical attention. He can be whatever he wants to be, but a lack of sourcing and a lack of critical notice do not add up to notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a DJ that no one listens to, isn't notable, to be blunt. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any song on the platform? Shows that his not a musician . Why mentioning all about social media, I suggest you check WP:NGRS 105.116.7.104 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Struck comment from IP sock of Wizkizayo.[reply]
I have, social media is not listed there, and we have no songs posted to any of these Nigerian sources, hence the individual is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, This subject is verified organically on Instagram due to Notability,The subject has 45,000 subscribers on YouTube as you mentioned here, so what makes you think the subject didn’t delete his videos on YouTube and songs from platforms? Other celebrities do that and you can’t question them, you saw no song on platforms [3], this is a DJ not a musician. 105.116.7.104 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment from IP sock of Wizkizayo.

I have an instagram and have posted music, that doesn't make a person notable. DJ's with a lack of sourcing and a small social media presence aren't notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this person notable then? Please present decent sourcing that talks about him, that show's he's gone viral and has attained notability. We don't have any of these and that's the issue here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did you check the article and did you check google? I can here to read about a celebrity I’ve heard alot about and I came to see such and it’s not nice, if @Vanderwaalforces says all the source are promo then do you mean everything those reliable platforms post are promo ? All I know is that this @Vanderwaalforces needs to be blocked, I can’t come to Wikipedia to read about someone and I see things like this, like I said a celebrity can decide to take down all his songs from platforms and delete his posts from social media, other celebrities do that sir, the subject has a real verified instagram account and I’ve heard about his events so many times that’s why I came here 105.116.7.104 (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Struck comments from IP sock of Wizkizayo.[reply]
  • Comment: I will also note that in the last AfD, the arguments were made that he was "fast rising" and "up and coming"; it's been 5 years since then, if he's still "up and coming", I don't think he's important enough to get an article. Fast rising isn't taking 6 years to be at least a tiny bit notable; to argue otherwise is silly. He wasn't notable then and appears about the same now. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the source if you see such, as “fast rising” because I just did and they are fine content and the subject is News worthy, ask the nominator his problem for saying all this celebrities content online are promotional, maybe he is angry that a lot of notable newspapers published this subject over time and from the sources, they are all significant coverage. 105.116.7.104 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Struck comments from IP sock of Wizkizayo.[reply]
    Ok, thank you. We'll go no further in this pointless exercise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have checked all the references, and there really is no evidence of notability. Restoring the article after the previous deletion discussion was questionable, but I suppose it's fair enough to give a chance for new evidence of notability to be provided, but unfortunately that hasn't been done. JBW (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which qualifies the article to be on Wikipedia, reliable per WP:NGRS in Nigeria. 105.116.4.65 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Struck comment from IP sock of Wizkizayo.[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the main takeaway from Vanderwaalforces's source analysis, i.e., that the new sources show all the hallmarks of promotional paid media, which is unfortunately far from uncommon in the Nigerian press. In the absence of genuinely independent sourcing, this person remains non-notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As requested by Liz on my talk, I intentionally sit out this AfD to let other editors who are not familiar with the subject reach consensus. Most of the times, I like to look at WP:RS/N or similar projects like Nigerian sources for ref assessment and to see what's reliable and what's not. The CiteHighlighter script marked at least 2 or 3 references from that article as reliable and i found them listed at Nigerian sources which is what led me to think the subject was legit. I have heard of Nigerian brown envelope journalism before, but this time I gave it the benefit of the doubt since different sources repeat the same Intel about the subject. By the looks of it and the source assessment table above, references cited on this article are definitely not reliable, therefore it would help a lot if they were red flagged to avoid such issues in the future. dxneo (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is imperative that I clarify this again, and I will continue doing so. These publications (sources) are not "definitely not reliable." Whenever I assess sources for AfD, I do so on a case-by-case and piece-by-piece basis. The Nation, The Guardian, The Punch, among others, are generally reliable sources. In a nutshell, their journalism is reliable, especially for topics that are not biographies (at least, of living persons). Some individuals seeking exposure by any means may go to these newspapers to publish their bizarre pieces, which is why each assessment should be done on a case-by-case and piece-by-piece basis. These sources/publications are reliable; in fact, once they are listed as reliable on WP:NGRS, then that is definitive. I am watching that page very carefully. However, the individual pieces should still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Saying the sources are unreliable is like blocking a large IP range because of one bad IP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Vanderwaalforces, but that does not make any sense at all. So if it was sports then these publications are "generally reliable" but when it's biography they are not? Make it make sense. If they are paid for then I don't see why you would say they are "generally reliable". Not everyone got your eyes and can see promo from a mile away. It's either they are reliable or unreliable, which one is it? One thing I noticed about projects like WP:Nigerian sources is that most domains listed there have never been assessed, it's just someone's sole decision. dxneo (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is only a rude and ridiculous thing to say that everything I just typed above do “not make any sense at all”. I’d have loved to reply further but it would be a sequel my reply above and if that makes no sense, I’m afraid my next reply might also make no sense. Plus, let’s not clutter up this AfD with this. Happy editing, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht Club de Chile

[edit]
Yacht Club de Chile (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 reliable sources cover the topic in enough depth to ensure its notability. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:02, 31 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. Owen× ☎ 21:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gehard Hasa

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Played 10 minutes in Albania's highest league and 13 games in the semi-pro second tier.

Sources in the article aren’t about him. Both is about the squad, with this to say about Hasa: ”Gerhard Hasa from striker has been adapted to right back” + “The innovation was the activation of striker Gehard Hasa as right back, another sector where Partizan has problems”. This is a friendly match report.

This comes much closer to significant coverage, but since his career didn’t pan out, that article also seems a bit inconsequential. What do you think? Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 31 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglewood Music and Arts Festival

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

Article about a defunct music festival, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, festivals are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to show reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG -- but the only "reference" cited here at all is a Facebook post, not a reliable or notability-building source, and a WP:BEFORE search only turned up unrelated coverage of other similarly-named events in Massachusetts or Australia rather than anything about this.
Since the event apparently went defunct a decade ago and thus might not Google well, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British and Irish media reportage from the early 2010s than I've got can find enough to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom and WP:NEVENT. (This relatively short-lived and mostly local-interest music festival has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable/independent sources. What coverage I can find is mostly ROTM "events listings" and the usual pre-event promotion. The lineup for the 2011 event involved only (as far as I can see) local/non-notable performers. While the 2012 and 2013 (and to a degree the 2014) events did seem to attract a few notable bands (which are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles), this music festival does not "inherit" notability from those bands. And the only sources that I can find, to establish even these basic facts, are the same type of events listings coverage we might expect for any event or gig anywhere.) It might, just about, be worthwhile redirecting to the Narrow Water Castle article. As an alternative to deletion. But, even that seems a bit much (as, as of today, the castle article doesn't mention the music festival. In fact, the subject festival isn't mentioned in any other articles - which in itself is kinda telling....) Guliolopez (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it’s not the notable Tanglewood Music Festival. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwa Losben

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

The only coverage of the subject in reliable sources that I was able to find is this 2009 NBC Philadelphia article. toweli (talk) 18:30, 24 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! 19:43, 31 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. There's no support for an outright deletion, but views are roughly evenly split between keeping this as a standalone article, and merging into National Guard of Ukraine. I'm calling this a "Keep", but splitting the difference with No consensus in allowing renomination in three months. Ideally, however, this should be resolved with a merge discussion on the Talk page. Merger is an editorial action, making AfD a suboptimal tool to debate it. Owen× ☎ 20:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16th Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)

[edit]
16th Artillery Brigade (Ukraine) (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. Can't find any sources online, possibly redirect to National Guard of Ukraine? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559047920465), (https://www.ukrdruk.com/product/flag-00853/), (https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3888632-u-nacgvardii-stvorili-centr-upravlinna-bezpilotnih-sistem-komanduvac.html) Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] - gives short description, commander, where it's based from MUN number.
  • [5] - article about drone hunting group of brigade not receiving bonuses. 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Ceriy (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:36, 17 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! 17:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At a glance, this might look like consensus to keep. However, the arguments need greater specificity and should perhaps address policy more clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://republic.com.ua/article/ukra%D1%97nska-armiya-formu%D1%94-novi-brigadi-2.html Yes Yes Presumably No 40 words of coverage that basically only confirms its existence in a listicle with 15 other units. ✘ No
https://focus.ua/uk/voennye-novosti/647504-v-ukrajini-stvorili-okremu-artileriysku-brigadu-nacionalnoji-gvardiji-shcho-pro-neji-vidomo Yes Yes ~ Some of the article is about the organization, but half of it focuses on a military vehicle, the 2S22 Bohdana. ~ Partial
https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3888545-brigadnij-general-oleksandr-pivnenko-komanduvac-nacgvardii.html No Whole article is a primary interview transcript with Oleksandr Pivnenko, a Ukrainian general. Ukrinform is state-owned media. Yes No One paragraph in a long interview transcript. No secondary coverage. ✘ No
https://malva.tv/20240814/na-svitlynax-spiljna-robota-artylerystiv-okremoji-artylerijsjkoji-bryhady-nhu-ta-12-ji-bryhady-specialjnoho/ Yes ? Wordpress.com browser icon, so likely questionable reliability. No Entire article is images. No coverage at all. ✘ No
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/prezident-volodimir-zelenskij-i-persha-ledi-olena-zelenska-v-92821 No Government press release Yes No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.telegraf.in.ua/kremenchug/10131868-vipusknik-kremenchuckogo-vijskovogo-liceju-oleg-golinej-otrimav-bojovij-prapor-dlja-okremoji-artilerijskoji-brigadi-ngu.html Yes ? @gmail.com contact address, so likely questionable reliability. No Trivial mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The lone Keep !voter had a week to respond and cite the claimed sources, but failed to do so. If sources proving notability do materialize in the future, the page can always be REFUNDed. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvi Patri

[edit]
Tanvi Patri (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:NBAD, WP:GNG. Actually its nowhere near meeting the basic badminton guidelines. zoglophie•talk• 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tanvi Patri has done very well at the youth level of her sport, and if she continues to play at adult level and to be successful, we may see her becoming notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article in a few years. However, she isn't there yet, either by the general notability guideline or by the subject specific guidelines relevant to her. JBW (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the comment above, this is TOOSOON. Winning u15 and u17 tournaments isn't quite notable for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The BLP passes gen. notability criteria as there is huge coverage in India. All mainstream Indian newspapers like The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Times of India have covered her and there are at least two secondary sources, which covered her in detail. I feel it should be kept. OR atleast drafted, BUT NOT deleted. Davidindia (talk)
Perhaps you can provide some references to the "huge coverage" of her then, since there aren't any at present. The cited articles in the three newspapers you mention are merely routine news reports of match results, and none of them have more than a few sentences about her; they are not even moderate coverage of her, let alone "huge coverage". JBW (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion has headed in the delete direction, but we should allow the keep !voter a chance to respond to the question about sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:35, 31 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. Strong arguments on both sides from highly experienced editors, but no rough consensus. It sounds like a merge discussion on Talk:Free Church of England for both this page and for Southern Diocese would be more productive. Or failing that, renomination in six months. Owen× ☎ 20:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Diocese

[edit]
Northern Diocese (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)

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that precedent matters on wikipedia? We're a consenus based organization, that means that we explicitly reject the concept of precedent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, anglicanmainstream.org and anglican.ink are blogs, telegraph.co.uk does not write about the church itself but about an alleged crime (you could in theory use it to claim that the crime was notable, but not the church), and it would be weird to use the Lancashire Post article to claim its notable because the article is about how non-notable it is Demolition is justified through the current state of the building not being fit for use and no longer used by the local community. so you'd only have an article on christiantoday.com which is way too meager to make something notable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment deletion is obviously inappropriate, but I'm curious regarding the motivation to break this off from the main FCE article, as I don't see there's a SIZE issue necessitating a split. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? Because currently this does not pass WP:GNG. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Do you need a basic intro to alternatives to deletion? Because I don't want to sound pedantic if you already understand it, but your question makes no sense in light of the content of my comment. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: I know that merging exist, but your POV is as clear as mud to me. If a subject does not meet GNG standards, delete/merge seems the only appropriate action possible. I also don't know why everyone is named clemens and I feel a bit left out. Poly "clemens" gnotus (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously know nothing of the sort. I'm a curationist, which means I'm always looking to present information in the best possible format, and merging or redirection is one of the best tools to do that. Deletion is unnecessarily confrontational for content where non-notability is the primary argument that it shouldn't exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: This is an encyclopedia, not /r/datahoarder, so deleting is not "confrontational", it is perhaps the most important thing you can do to improve Wikipedia. The Northern Diocese does not meet GNG, and the little content it has would be difficult to merge into the FCE article. Polygnotus (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making a great argument for keeping it as a separate article. I agree. Keep as merging would be suboptimal and per the other keep arguments. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: you appear to be deliberately misinterpreting what Polygnotus said, there is no good faith way to interpret that as a "great argument for keeping it as a separate article" other than incompetence (which doesn't seem to be your issue) so this is uncivil and disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back Please temper your comments. You are entitled to your opinions, but impugning the good faith and/or competence of editors who disagree with you is not conducive to a collegial discussion. Kind regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At best Jclemens is mocking Polygnotus, that is not conducive to a collegial discussion... But you did not ask Jclemens to temper their comments or lecture them about impugning Polygnotus's competence and good faith (which is the result of such public mockery). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the least. I'm merely applying the natural consequence of Polygnotus' badgering behavior. Beginning with would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? that editor's behavior has been irrelevant to my position--should this be kept or merged?--and as such, convinced me that opposing their apparent attempt to Right Great Wrongs was in the encyclopedia's best interest. You see, I could care less whether a religious group is a fringe schism or not, I just want us to cover it appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Back to work please gentlemen. Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we're throwing evidence free aspersions of WP:badgering? There had better be evidence from other pages to support that assertion, because the edits to this page do not. I don't see how sources that demonstrate notability could be irrelevant to a position taken in a deletion discussion... Such a position can only be based on the existance or presumed existence of such sources (there is no other path to notability). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't get this circular reasoning. It's directly at odds with long-established policy that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools" - should this been removed from WP:ORGCRIT then? Also "Presumptively notable" means we assume it is notable, unless evidence exists to the contrary, as it does here. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AusLondonder I think you're taking an excessively legalistic approach to this. If you look at the subject of ships; almost any named military vessel or ocean going commercial ship has been treated as presumptively notable as long as there is evidence that it exists (or did). ASFAIK this is not explicitly spelled out in any guidelines. But I can't remember the last time an article about a military vessel or ocean going ship was deleted at AfD. And yes there are some obscure ships with very little in the form RS coverage. Sometimes just a short blurb in Janes and/or maybe an old news clipping somewhere. In the end, NORG is not policy. It's a guideline as are all of the SNGs. And there are and have always been generally accepted exceptions that the community has adopted organically over the years w/o spelling it all out in a new or amended guideline. On the other hand WP:IAR is WP:POLICY. I don't wish to come across as trivializing NORG or any of our other SNGs. I think they serve a useful purpose in keeping the clutter and promotional fertilizer out of the project. But I do not believe they should be treated as some form of scripture, i.e. infallible, inerrant and the last word on all matters. See also WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have to cite WP:IAR to explain why an article about an individual diocese of a fringe religious group with less than 20 churches in a country of nearly 70 million should be kept irrespective of sourcing, I think that demonstrates my point completely. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe religious group? Ummm... ok. I think we have reached a point where we should just agree that we disagree and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what's controversial there. I'm not suggesting religious groups are fringe in general, I'm saying this is a very, very small group. It has less than 20 member churches, many with tiny congregations. In comparison the Diocese of Bristol in the Church of England has more than 200 churches alone. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such precendent... And wikipedia is not a precedent based organization... When it comes to policy and guideline based arguments precedent is not among them. You are currently arguing against a common sense approach, your position is the extremist/anti-consensus one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only valid (policy and guideline based) keep argument is Atlantic306's... They're right that it doesn't have to pass ORGCRIT and they're right that passing GNG would be enough... The problem is that they don't demonstrate that it passes GNG, and it doesn't pass GNG. People keep saying precendent... but there is no precendent in policy or guideine on wikipedia, we're explicitly a consenus bases organization not a precendent based one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why merging to the parent denomination isn't appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if a small selection of editors had actually made a case for merging rather than falsely asserting all dioceses of all religious groups no matter the size are notable irrespective of lack of secondary sources then people might be supporting a merge. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything worth merging in this context. Merging is for when there is valuable content that would be of use somewhere else on wikipedia, this is self-sourced clutter of no signficant encyclopedic value. Nothing valuable or useful therefore nothing to merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, but either way, expand with the contents of this book
    Fenwick, John (2004-08-24). The Free Church of England: Introduction to an Anglican Tradition. T&T Clark International (now Bloomsbury Academic). pp. 133–142. ISBN 978-0-567-08433-0..
    because anyone interested in this subject is likely to be interested in the time the last surviving bishop nearly died trying to make the next bishop, as well as the local churches that split back to the organizations they originally split off from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this potentially contribute to the notability of the church? How specifically the Northern Diocese? Also WP:GNG requires secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing you didn't read the source, since the story here is specifically about the bishop of the Northern Diocese. Saying that's irrelevant is like saying that hiring the CEO for a company is irrelevant to the article about the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And how does any of what you've just said apply to notability? Because there doesn't actually appear to be a policy or guideline based argument in there... Fenwick is associated with the topic of the article so their book doesn't count towards notability at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the idea here that no source written by a member of a religion is Truly™ independent? We have not generally applied that standard to religious subjects, just like we have not checked authors' political party membership or nationality when deciding what contributes to notability for politicians or countries. It looks like the author became a bishop in this religious organization a few years after this publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No source written by a member of the leadership of a religion (colloquially the clergy) is independent of the organization they are a leader in. It applies to any organization (political and military as well). A paper published by a serving US Army officer can't be used as an independent source on a US Army post. Similarly coverage from a political party's founder does not count towards that party's notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, It would perhaps be an improvement to this article if former parishes were noted also, to show the shifting geographic distribution of the denomination, for which the 1995 R.D. Fenwick (an Anglican Communion bishop, not a relative of the FCofE bishop J. Fenwick) doctoral thesis, currently the first source on the Free Church of England article, would be a useful source as regards the 19th & 20th C, but would not cover 21st C changes. However, with the currently information alone, neither this article, nor Southern Diocese, are seemingly sufficiently large as to necessitate separation from the main Free Church of England article, the details of the historic bishops and the current locations is relevant information regarding the Free Church of England, the sufficient notability of which I believe is not doubted. SemperAdiuvans (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you rightly say, the articles currently do not demonstrate why they should be seperate from the main article on the church. I would support restoring some of the content back to the notable church page. AusLondonder (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally theses are not counted towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as I stated in the AfD for the Southern Diocese. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment at that AfD is "Keep (or the alternative, merge) per Dclemens1971 and Ad Orientem. It’s not a new sect or religion; it’s almost 200 years old. Mainstream apostolic churches are notable."[8] which doesn't appear to apply to either situation, these aren't deletion discussions for the religion/church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 31 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! 19:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Northern Diocese and Southern Diocese. The church is notable, but the individual dioceses aren't. Both lists of congregations are short, and if they were given in the parent article rather than being broken out it'd be easier to get an overview of where the church operates. I don't see any need for redirects, as someone searching for "Northern/Southern Diocese" is unlikely to be looking for this church. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free Church of England. Per Adam Sampson, the church is notable, the individual dioceses not. There is simply no need to split out the information about the northern and southern dicocese from the parent article. Anyone interested in the Free Church of England will be better served by having all the information in that article, which is well below the threshold for considering a size split. I note Adam Sampson's concern that a redirect is not needed, and a merge will leave a redirect. I believe, however, there is a small amount of mergeable information, and keeping the edit history is then the right thing to do. Should another primary topic of Northern diocese emerge, the redirect could be overwritten with the new primary topic, but edit history would still be preserved. Thus I believe merge is the most sensible outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José Belizón Tocino

[edit]
José Belizón Tocino (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 appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as for the following reasons:
    • First off, as for sources, there are there are none; zero, zilch, nada, nothing. When I bothered to look this person up, I can find almost no information beyond websites either mirroring or clearly parroting the information stated in the article.
    • Second, as for the content of the article, it is abysmal. It's more hagiography than it is biography. Starting off only two sentences in, a reader is confronted with promotional B.S. such as the following: "He was born in a humble family and showed good skills for drawing since he was a child.". This is as clear an illustration of the self-made man trope as there may ever be.
    • Third, as far as the edit history of this article, there appears no indication it will ever be improved. The original editor (from 2009) who created the article, appears to have created an account solely to create this article and has never edited since. The rest of the edits are all minor things like moving categories.
  • Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:47, 31 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 The Warning (band). Owen× ☎ 20:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Villarreal

[edit]
Alejandra Villarreal (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)

See also the article’s Talk page. This should be a basic redirect to The Warning (band) but I suspect it will be contested so I’m bringing it here for consensus. I am very familiar with The Warning and wrote a sizeable chunk of their article, but Alejandra simply has not achieved any individual notability outside of the band, per the requirements of WP:BANDMEMBER and WP:NOTINHERITED. This article merely repeats info from the band article plus some fan trivia, and rather desperately tries to beef things up with more trivia about her gear. Note that Alejandra’s sister/bandmate Paulina Villarreal also has her own article, but that one is a bit stronger because Paulina has earned notice from pro drumming publications. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stand and not be deleted.
Just because a musician is known for being a member of a band should not regulate them the band's article only.
This article should stand as a marker to add notes to, concerning further achievements Alejandra will make in the future. 174.165.130.146 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the "WP" policies linked above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that, to date, Alejandra has only achieved success in collaboration with her sisters. Deleting this page, removes any place for specific personal and equipment information which would not be appropriate in a band page. Phil1107 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is self-contradictory, because if she has no individual achievements then that's exactly why she shouldn't have her own article. Calling for an article that only contains non-notable trivia for possible future purposes violates several different policies that can be found at WP:NOT. The discussion at Talk:Alejandra Villarreal shows much better awareness of the relevant policies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. toweli (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The article reads like a fan site, noting the specific guitars used for specific performances as if they have great historical significance. She didn't use the Hendrix 'Star-Spangled Banner' guitar at the opening of the Woodstock II. The entry contains excess unattributed trivial knowledge. I agree with nom, does not meet WP:BANDMEMBER, and lacks WP:SIGCOV. —Ventric (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The page does not qualify for speedy deletion. But other than the VAGUEWAVE by the clearly canvassed/sock accounts, there is no opposition to deletion. Owen× ☎ 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hosenul Islam

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

Unable to find reliable, significant sources, I previously suggested the author to submit the article through AfC. He then moved it to the Draft space, but now he has moved it back to the main space without getting it reviewed through AfC, which is not mandatory. The article does not cite reliable sources. Blog posts, user-generated articles like Medium, and similar platforms are unreliable. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 18:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because references are given from islampidia.org and other websites besides medium.শাকিল শাওন (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is by a Bangladeshi civil servant, an academic and human rights activist. Credible sources are cited. Also reference is given to a news website called IP Bangla. This proves the reliable and significant of this article. So I think this article should not be deleted.শাকিল শাওন (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@শাকিল শাওন, if you can provide the sources you think are reliable in this thread specifically, that will be of help to other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering sorry, but I cannot understand your world. মোঃ আহসান হাবিব রিফাত (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the best sources you've used, that would help show us notability? That's what aslivering is asking about. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be some meat-puppetry occurring. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Already reported. GrabUp - Talk 04:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Asus ZenFone. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asus ZenUI

[edit]
Asus ZenUI (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 every single piece of technology is notable, and the fact that this article has been on Wikipedia for ten years without a single independent reliable source attached suggests this is not notable tech. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:43, 31 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 2024 Venezuelan blackouts. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Venezuela's power outages

[edit]
2024 Venezuela's power outages (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 already exists under 2024 Venezuelan blackouts. cyrfaw (talk) 16:16, 31 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. Complex/Rational 16:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Net

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 16:10, 31 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 Starfleet#Starfleet Shipyards. Star Mississippi 14:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards

[edit]
Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards (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 appears to fail GNG, one source is Fandom and the other is a fan site. CommissarDoggoTalk? 14:55, 31 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 23:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Jubba Airways Fokker 50 crash

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2022 Jubba Airways Fokker 50 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find (including Somali sources), only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. Whilst there exists this news article dating from November 2022, there is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the accident making it a primary source. Additionally, lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOTNEWS, no secondary sources cited only primary and tertiary sources. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Somalia. 14:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, scheduled passenger flight crashes at an airport and burns up meets longstanding notability standards on Wikipedia. The fact that it happened in a country where local news sources are not in English or online makes it more difficult to research an article, but does not change the underlying notability. The fact that the passengers were successfully evacuated without death does not make it non-notable. (Copied and pasted from the first AFD attempt on this article, it still applies today). RecycledPixels (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've repeatedly mentioned a "longstanding notability standard" in numerous AfDs without providing an actual guideline or policy, what "notability standard" are you talking about? Limited coverage in english sources or "being difficult to research" are neither excuses or arguments since even Somali sources don’t demonstrate the article’s notability. Just because an accident happened does not make it automatically notable.
    Notability is based on available evidence. WP:GNG states that "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Evidence suggests that primary sources seem to be the only coverage existing. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events such as accidents that were (widely) reported at the time are usually not notable unless something gives them additional enduring significance, which there really isn't so I'm not sure about what "underlying notability" you are talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I discussed it with you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angara Airlines Flight 200. You disagreed with me at that discussion, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time going back and forth with you trying to change your mind, but I will raise the issue at AFDs where you continue to ignore community consensus about certain event articles. This community consensus is that there is a presumption of notability about certain types of airline crash articles, within certain fairly narrow parameters that were pointed out to you in that other AFD discussion. I doubt that you speak Somali, I doubt that you have the ability to research offline Somali news archives, and I doubt that an Internet news search, especially if it's done in English (which is not what I'm accusing you of) of an event that occurred in certain developing nations without much of an Internet presence or users is going to adequately reflect the amount of independent coverage that an event receives, which is why I mentioned the country where it occurred, and is why certain presumptions of notability (notability guidelines are some, community consensus are others) is important when making decisions of whether articles should be deleted based on GNG, NOTNEWS, and EVENTCRIT. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that I'm supposedly ignoring a fabricated community consensus is quite laughable and is quite the accusation to throw. Those parameters were, in my opinion, quite cherry picked since they were only articles that were kept. I could also list those that were deleted such as: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9] and so on and so forth. So the idea that there is a community consensus is quite questionable.
    WP:GNG states that, "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." You can presume that the article is notable, presume that coverage certainly exists, but those are not guarantees of notability, merely assumptions. If offline secondary sources exist, then I might reconsider, but without much evidence, such a claim doesn't hold much value. Translating and searching a topic in Somali is quite easy, I've done my part which was to search for the existence of sources, after that, it is no longer up to me to find if they exist or not. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll notice that I didn't comment on any of those deletion nominations, which is a clear sign that I didn't object to their deletions, usually because they didn't fit into that narrow area of presumed notability. I couldn't tell you that with 100% certainty because the articles have been deleted, but the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts daily update is on my watchlist and I pretty reliably look at it most days. I might miss a couple, but not many. When I see a deletion nomination that I think is wrong, I usually comment on it, unless it's already a snow keep by the time I see it. If I don't think it should be kept, I don't comment on it. Common events like runway overruns, or engine mishaps, or someone with explosive diarrhea on an airplane get deleted all the time without my objection. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I can't vouch for the 2019 AFDs either because that looks like it was before I was involved in this topic area. Looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Air Flight 293 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60 were the first AFDs I was involved with in this topic area, later that year. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the article, is it’s a clear WP:NOTNEWS violation. Maybe if there is more secondary sources it will be notable, but sadly not. Protoeus (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba Ronu

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

This is very much in alignment of WP:NOTNEO. This NPOV-violating article fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or revamp — I'm unsure if it fits entirely with WP:NOTNEO as the term has significantly increased in usage and discussion over the last two years. However, it is clear that this user — a likely sockpuppet of a user blocked for ethnically-biased edits — does not intend to add to an encyclopedia with this article. The article lacks nuance, not even mentioning how the term has been used as a bigoted rallying cry recently. Overall, it should either be deleted or completely overhauled. Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ethnically biased article that was probably created due to the administration of Bola Tinubu's government and his supporters, does not meet WP:NOTABILITY in my opinion.

Jõsé hola 02:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EverGirl

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
EverGirl (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)

Nomination for 100.7.34.111:

Single-paragraph, seven-sentence, four-reference stub discussing a non-notable, long-since-defunct, and completely forgotten children's lifestyle brand.

C F A 💬 13:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Brookman, Faye (2004-05-21). "Kohl's tween offering". Women's Wear Daily: 9. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Gale.

      The article notes: "Kohl's, as reported, is introducing a collection of licensed clothing, through its 590 doors based on Nickelodeon's everGirl this summer in time for back-to-school. But the expanding effort will also include cosmetics and accessory items. The everGirl collection will vie with other properties such as Bratz and Stuff by Hilary Duff for the hearts and purse strings of young girls. ... EverGirl is a lifestyle brand for tween girls ages 8 to 14 centered around four ethnically diverse characters -- Joy, Hope, Starr and Skye. Young girls were introduced to the property with a Web site in January complete with games and an "ever scope" where they determine which of the four girl's personalities is the best fit with theirs. The site also features animated stories about the girls as they live their dreams. There are more than one million registered users, ages 8 to 15, who have already taken the ever scope quiz."

    2. Marlowe, Chris (2004-04-26). "'Ren,' 'everGirl' ring up diverse mobile products". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 383, no. 30. p. 8. ProQuest 2470944256.

      The article notes: "Taking "everGirl" mobile called for personalization products such as icons and ring tones, however T'Ren,' 'everGirl' ring up diverse mobile TL more than 550,000 primarily tween girls registered to peruse its offers for personal exploration, pop music and branded accessories. It was co-created by Angela Santomero, who also was co-creator of "Blue's Clues," and until now only existed online and on T-shirts."

    3. Sherman, Jay (2004-01-05). "Nick Puts Muscle Behind everGirl". TelevisionWeek. Vol. 23, no. 1. p. 3. EBSCOhost 11947167.

      The article notes: "Starting this month Nick Enterprises is debuting everGirl, a lifestyle brand aimed at the so-called tween girl set, ages 8 to 14. Using as its foundation a line of apparel sold at Kohl's department stores, a Web site with an animated collection of ethnically diverse young girls and a theme song and all-girl band Play, everGirl is being touted as a brand aimed at promoting self-esteem, creative expression and self-discovery. ... The launch of everGirl is part of a broader strategy at Nick Enterprises to have a presence in virtually every medium targeting children, using original creative properties when appropriate."

    4. Verndon, Joan (2004-06-11). "Barbie gets a perfume, Skittles get a lipstick". The Record. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Nickelodeon is using its television and media clout to build a new clothing and "lifestyle" brand targeted at "tween" girls, ages 8-14, called "everGirl." It launched an everGirl Web site in January that received one million visitors in the first month it was online. And it has an exclusive deal with Kohl's to sell a line of everGirl clothes and accessories that will arrive in stores in July."

    5. Luna, Nancy (2005-02-22). "O.C. in thick of toy action". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05.

      The article notes: "Ages: 4 and up; Price: $7.99 to $9.99; Availability: June everGirl Fun Factor: This line of 12 dolls competes with the popular Bratz brand. These pre-teen lifestyle dolls are designed to resemble a real "tween" girl. Each girl boasts different clothes to match personality styles, which range from preppy to bohemian."

    6. Buckingham, Jane Rinzler (2004-01-22). "everGirl gives tweens another stylish doll". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-09-05. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The latest to join the crowd is Nickelodeon's everGirl. The brand features four diverse friends named Hope, Joy, Starr and Skye, all with styles and ambitions similar to today's tweens. The brand's goal is to boost tween girls' self-esteem by promoting creativity, individuality and personal expression. The first contact tweens will have with everGirl is the Web site, ever girl.com, which is filled with games, activities and animated episodes starring the everGirl characters. March will usher in the release of an official everGirl song, performed by the all-girl band PLAY. And Kohl's will be selling an exclusive line of everGirl accessories, dolls and apparel starting in July."

    7. Steinbock, Dan (2005). The Mobile Revolution: The Making of Mobile Services Worldwide. London: Kogan Page. p. 214. ISBN 0-7494-4296-4. Retrieved 2024-09-05 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "With the transition from voice to data services, particularly interactive messaging, the youthful adopters have grown, well, ever younger! Take, for instance, Nickelodeon’s everGirl, which integrates a website, pop music and a customized line of apparel and accessories to create a healthy lifestyle brand that allows tween girls to explore who they are and what they want to become."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow everGirl to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Hamilton (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Also delete incoming redirects Caroline Hamilton and Caroline Hamilton (disambiguation): no subject in enwiki is known by that name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:48, 31 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 14:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (confectionery)

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

Article is a WP:PROMO. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products. References are WP:ROUTINE. Charlie (talk) 13:47, 31 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 14:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Sharma

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a martial artist, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for martial artists. As always, martial artists are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources about the stuff he did in media and books fully independent of his own self-published web presence", of which this article cites none. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sherriff

[edit]
Anne Sherriff (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable and must meet WP:BASIC, namely having received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The subject lacks such coverage. Two sources are currently present, one which is a primary source and another which is a very brief and routine piece about her appointment. AusLondonder (talk) 13:21, 31 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. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair King-Smith

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All three sources are primary and do not contribute to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 31 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. I see most editors agreeing with the deletion nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rumal

[edit]
Battle of Rumal (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)

Low quality article about a relatively non notable event with limited coverage within sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring opinions from accounts with few edits, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist in hopes of establishing some sort of consensus, which at present appears lacking. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 31 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 11:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Petrovský

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Andrej Petrovský (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 Slovak men's footballer, who seems to have never played in any European top-tier clubs, was deemed non-notable back in 2015 AfD discussion. I have searched his name in conjunction with *any club he has played for* and "site:.sk", but couldn't find any significant coverage that would suggest he is now notable per WP:GNG only, as NFOOTBALL no longer exists. The best secondary source I found was AktualitySK, which only mentions Petrovský in an image caption when he played for Skalica in 2016. Excluding database sources, I only found namesakes and a lot of hits about the unrelated ice hockey player Servac Petrovský. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 31 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 Denmark–Ukraine relations. ✗plicit 14:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Copenhagen

[edit]
Embassy of Ukraine, Copenhagen (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)

Mainly based on primary sources and fails WP:ORG. Sources 3-10 merely confirm former ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 31 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. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Şefik Pasha

[edit]
Süleyman Şefik Pasha (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)

Surprisingly the Turkish article also has no sources. As a fair number of Turkish editors are interested in history I thought better to open for discussion rather than “prod”. Is he notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 24 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! 09:09, 31 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! 01:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chulo Magazine

[edit]
Chulo Magazine (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 for NPP. No independent sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:54, 24 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! 09:08, 31 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 Slovakia–United Kingdom relations which preserves the history if there's desire to merge sourced information Star Mississippi 12:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava

[edit]
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava (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:ORG. Only source provided is primary. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to Merge this article but now there is opposition to that closure so I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can get to a consensus. Would folks accept a Redirect instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Important article about a notable building in Bratislava. Cantab12 (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet a notability guideline? Where are the sources to back your claims? LibStar (talk) 09:07, 26 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! 08:57, 31 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! 01:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Bhutta

[edit]
Saeed Bhutta (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 find sources to show that other individuals with the same name are notable, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 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! 08:56, 31 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 West African Football Union#Defunct competitions. where it can be added. If it is not done in sufficient time, RFD can handle this Star Mississippi 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAFU U20 Women's Cup

[edit]
WAFU U20 Women's Cup (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 Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 31 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 Democratic National Convention as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic National Convention

[edit]
2028 Democratic National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unsure as to whether there are enough sources to justify the existence of this article at this juncture. PlateOfToast (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is already a planned bid from Nashville, and the "media speculation" from Chicago comes from a direct quote by Governor JB Pritzker (who was a major player in selecting the 2024 convention). The event is essentially guaranteed to happen, more media coverage will roll in as the date approaches Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common technical regulation

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

Unreferenced since 2009, no apparent WP:GNG emerges from the article. BEFORE in GS shows some uses, but nothing that suggests stand-alone notability (WP:SIGCOV). No idea where this could be redirected, although WP:ATD-R is always an acceptable alternative. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 31 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Black Day

[edit]
Kashmir Black Day (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)

Appears like 2 articles exist for same context. Jammu and Kashmir Black Day. Why do we need 2 articles on same issue? Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, It would be better to request a merge in that case. The article in current state appear to be related to two different observances one celebrated by Pakistan and other by India respectively. signed, 511KeV (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 25 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! 07:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The deletion rationale is that we didn't need two articles on the same subject. But now that it's been argued that these articles cover two different subjects, are there any other valid grounds for deletion? Clearly editors are opposed to a Merge but that is not the same as arguing to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given 4 reliable news articles covering it. Some focus more on explaining the conflict than detailing the event itself, but at least one does and all give some details on it and make arguments about its motivations. It's worth having an article on at least so that people can see what it's about if they're curious. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

[edit]
Islamic Commercial Law (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 added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the book is "very highly cited" then it satisfies the guideline WP:TBK. NBOOK, like PROF, is, by design, not just a rehash of GNG. The book has some coverage in Reference and Research Book News, and a thorough description of the book (which will not fit in the author's article) is helpful. [I struck my previous !vote which discussed possible merger and redirection targets.] James500 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500 My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it is a rationale for relaxing the degree of sigcov required for academic publications, but not that it is an excuse to not have any - it's phrased in a vague way that imply a combination of several of these factors may help, and this doesn't hit too many of them. The R&R Book News publication is two sentences which just summarize the book - they don't really do reviews, it's usually just a sentence on "this book was published and here is what it's about", which can be helpful but which does not help notability IMO. AFAIK it is generally frowned upon to only have material in an article that is sourced from the topic itself, and that's really all we can get here. "very" highly cited was probably an overestimation on my part, but it does have some yes PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation of TBK is mistaken. TBK says nothing about "significant coverage". The entire purpose of TBK is to disapply GNG. James500 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well TBK is vague and does not have any clear-cut guidelines like NBOOK does, only "possible findings" and a suggestion to use common sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The possible findings for notability under WP:TBK, as listed without elaboration, are some combination of the following:
    • whether the book is published by an academic press, (no)
    • how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, (cited a decent amount, but not to an exceptional degree)
    • the number of editions of the book, (a few, not very high)
    • whether one or more translations of the book have been published, (none)
    • how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, (not very)
    • whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions (no)
    Hence, I disagree with a keep vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at GScholar, Kamali seems to have an exceptional level of citation. The average h-index for a law professor is less than 3, because it is a low citation field for academics. He is said to be "the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language". I am tempted to invoke BKCRIT #5. James500 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's definitely notable. BKCRIT #5 only applies to people whose "life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.", which he is not, but I guess I can see your case here. Unfortunate that we only have an article on what appears to be the least notable of his many works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures and Options" has 333 GScholar citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures" has 75 citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Options" has 66 citations. That is a total of 474 citations. I would say that it actually is very highly cited. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 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! 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion, between two experienced, well-intentioned editors is about as No Consensus as you can get. More participation here would help but I'm not sure if the subject area is too niche to draw in other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 31 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. And that participation is not forthcoming. It is not eligible for SOFT deletion, however no one is supporting retention. Can be treated as a PROD should an editor contest this, but there is no need for a further silent relist Star Mississippi 03:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand women's national under-18 softball team

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Thailand women's national under-18 softball 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)

The subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The only sources in the article are primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything that would establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 31 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 Pokémon video games. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémate

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

I cannot find any Reception on this game. I found this TheGamer source: https://www.thegamer.com/pokemate-pokemon-go-precursor/ but it was published before TheGamer's reliability date of August 2020, meaning it provides as much notability to the subject as an average Valnet source. Beyond that, Game Rant briefly discussed it, but it also does not add to notability and is part of this listicle. I checked Japanese sources, and found only passing mentions of the game's existence, and the sources in the article are either routine coverage of the game's announcement or not enough to establish notability. There is no Reception to really build this article with. A viable AtD for this subject is the "List of Pokemon video games" article, where the subject is mentioned, in order to preserve page history. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. I'm assuming that the desired target article is List of Pokémon video games, is that correct? It helps to provide a direct link to the target article as there could be other similarly named articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made sure to state the exact article title in the nomination for clarity, but yes, List of Pokémon video games is my suggested AtD target. Admittedly unsure of how to hyperlink while using Twinkle, so apologies about that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 31 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. The consensus of participants is this article can be improved through editing, better sourcing and, perhaps, a page title change and that deletion is unnecessary. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of virtualization development

[edit]
Timeline of virtualization development (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)

It is not at all clear what anything in this article has to do with Virtualization or "Virtualization development" which is not defined in the article or even the article it links to (which I have also opened an AFD for). This appears to mostly consist of WP:OR and I don't think there's any way of cleaning it up or establishing notability as it is completely unclear what the article is even supposed to be about. If not deleted, I believe this needs to be moved to "Timeline of computer virtualization" or something similar and will require a complete rewrite. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The intent of the article is clear: a timeline of virtualization technologies, mirroring the history section of Virtualization. However, more could be done to highlight the relevance of each development to virtualization, particularly in the 60s and 70s. I think a name change could be justified ('Timeline of virtualization technology' perhaps? Compare with other related lists), and the article is currently suffering from WP:SYNTH - but there is no lack of sources on exactly this topic. Here are a couple from a preliminary search, and from the other article:

Tule-hog (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Developer

[edit]
IBM Developer (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)

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 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. One does not appear likely to emerge here, and the desired outcome does not require AfD. Please continue this discussion on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 03:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHFD

[edit]
KHFD (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)

Looking at a web search, the airport appears to be the overwhelmingly primary topic. The disambiguation can be replaced by a redirect and a hatnote at the airport article (a previous attempt at redirecting the article has been reverted by the page creator). 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To the nominator, please provide a link to your proposed Redirect target article which should have been included in your nomination statement. At least that's what I think you are asking for, I'm not sure. Also, you didn't need an AFD to turn an article page into a Redirect. AFD is for proposing that articles be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the airport article, which was implied by the nomination. Also, I didn't feel like immediately redirecting a disambiguation page since it likely doesn't have a lot of watchers so figured to draw some attention to it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I only just realised that @Bkonrad (who did not comment here) has added another meaning, it seems logical to just move this page to KHFD (disambiguation). 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but please don't just refer to "the airport article", please add a link to the specific redirect target article you want. If this discussion closes as a Redirect, the closer shouldn't have to go looking themselves to find out what you meant and could have mentioned in your original nomination statement. Many thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who cannot figure this out from looking at the page should not be closing this discussion IMO. And looking at the page should be done by a closer. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the hostility? I'm just asking you to make things easy for our closers who look at dozens of AFDs a day. Closers shouldn't have to read your mind and guess which article you meant, they usually focus on the substance of the discussion, they generally don't review the article, looking for probable target articles. There could be several airports mentioned in it. I asked you to do something extremely simple and you seem unable to do this. I think anyone who cannot figure out how to include a link in an AFD opinion shouldn't be suggesting a redirect or merging. It's Wikipedia 101. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be several airports mentioned in it. – there are not, and my phrasing is unambiguous. If there were, I would have chosen a different one. And in fact something as extremely simple as this could have been done together with your very first comment if you deemed it necessary to link it here. If it's somehow still unclear, yes, the article is Hartford-Brainard Airport, the only airport mentioned on the (originally 2-, now) 3-entry dab page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to WP:REDIRECT: "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.[1]", citing an RFC. So it's not necessary, but according to that guideline when the article is contested some form of outside input is necessary and AFD is an option.
It does seem kind of like a requested move what with everyone talking about the primary topic and all: the thing I just quoted doesn't mention disambiguations?
Airport mentioned seems to be the Hartford–Brainard Airport.
I guess a {{redirect}} template could be added, and a KHFD (disambiguation) page could be created?
Support redirect on the grounds that the other options are the former name of a no-longer existent radio station and part of the code of another small radio station that doesn't actually have its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other option would be moving this to dispute resolution but since it's already gotten started it seems like just procedural hassle. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and tag for clean up). The disambiguation page (as at the time of this comment) lists 3 legitimate uses. It would be difficult to assert a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally, I could withdraw this nomination and request a move of the disambiguation page now. But I would say that an active airport is primary to a former callsign of a defunct municipal radio station and a municipal TV station (with 600 Google hits for "KHFD-LD" vs 88000 for "KHFD"). 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.
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. Page creator is advised to review WP:RS to better understand what is mean on Wikipedia by "reliable sources". It's very specific, it is different from the common lay opinion of what is meant by "reliable" and it is required for articles on this project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
We're looking for reliable sources (not just any web page that exists) in which this organization is the subject of the coverage (not just a name that happens to get mentioned within coverage about something else), but none of the sources here footnotes here meet that standard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources and references do exist.
Here are two more:
Cyber Security and Privacy: Key Principles and Tools for Older Adults - Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario (eapon.ca)
https://etalentcanada.ca/for-educators/programs/ictc-knowledge-exchange-hub Emmajp377 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We require reliable sources, not just any web page you can find with the organization's name in it. Reliable sources means journalist-written media coverage and/or books, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your vigilance in enforcing a certain degree of verifiability to the references provided, I believe your inference that the ample links and references provided are 'unreliable' is unwarranted. The identity of all supplied sources is eminently verifiable and the information is 100% accurate. Emmajp377 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing means third party coverage about the organization in media that is fully independent of the organization. The definition of a reliable source is not "it was published by people with inside knowledge because they're directly involved", it's "the source represents a journalist independently writing and publishing media content that covers the things the organization does as news". Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources in the article are either non-independent (the organization, a parent organization, someone the organization partners with talking about their partnership) or they quote the organization on something. No source given appears to describe it other than one giving a one-sentence statement not saying much more than that it's a cybersecurity organization. Did a search to see if I could find any independent sources that discuss it in at least a couple paragraphs, but couldn't find anything, other than press releases. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your decision that "a couple of paragraphs" of descriptive text must accompany any "independent source" is arbitrary. If you found even one of these references to be inaccurate or misleading, then say so. If not, your assertion that "all sources are either non-independent or provide an independent quote" do not establish the organization's lack of credibility. If you however believe that this organization and its mission are either not important or obsolete, then state it as such. Otherwise why trivialize the important work that this federal non-profit organization does? Emmajp377 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An independent source is either a media outlet or a book writing about the organization's work journalistically and/or analytically. It is not (a) anything that the organization or other people or organizations directly affiliated with it wrote and published themselves, or (b) the organization's founder being briefly quoted as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bamlet Smallman

[edit]
John Bamlet Smallman (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 successful but nonnotable businessman --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn, after article expansion. --Altenmann >talk 01:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Plenty of coverage in Canadian sources, [24], [25], [26] and he has a plaque in London [27], but he's more notable as a local person than anything national... I don't know, he opened a store in London an was well known, but is that enough for a wiki article? Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 31 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namumula

[edit]
Namumula (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:NSONG. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. HueMan1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Namumula is set to release on Friday (August 30, 2024), I don't think this is a WP:TOOSOON, the days are numbered until the song is released. Royiswariii (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It definitely fails WP:NSONG, a song not yet officially released could not be significantly covered by media, the existing “coverages” are only marketing maneuvers. WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTNEWS. Nihonjinatny (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources indicated by Royiswariii are reliable; they're more than just an announcement since they talk about the song. I also found a few more sources which talk about the song: [28], [29] and [30]. Since the song is slated to be released tomorrow, we'll expect some more sources about it. Nonetheless, the article is good enough to meet WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎🙃 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: The song was released today. Tho I agree the sourcing for the cast needs to be revised for primary sources reasons. Borgenland (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, this song has been released today, does this change the situation regarding the sourcing for this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Hi! I'm the creator of the Namumula article. The song was released yesterday, and I've added some new sources to the article. Other users have also helped me further expand it. Royiswariii (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
  • Keep: The song meets NSONG criteria and likely did so prior to this discussion. The sources, such as ABS-CBN and Billboard, are reliable and provide sufficient depth. Indo360 (talk) 04:30, 31 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 Draftify‎. as an ATD. Editors can create a Redirect from this page title if that is an edit independent from this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Varre

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR (with only one significant role in a notable film). The available sources are all tabloid coverage under WP:SBST and/or of questionable reliability under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Repeatedly recreated by UPE/COI editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have more than one significant role in notable productions. Significant does not mean "lead" role only. Did you have his role in Evvarikee Cheppoddu in mind? His role in Badrinath could be considered significant too; and at least a couple of other roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NACTOR. Just go to Baahubali 2: The Conclusion and ctrl-f his character Sethupathi. He has played negative roles (in films such as Badrinath) which may have garnered more recognition than Evvarikee Cheppoddu.[31] DareshMohan (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per DareshMohan. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify. The subject's whole career is from unreliable source 123Telugu.com. If you take out everything from the career that is solely from unreliable source, nothing is left. 2 other unreliable sources are Indiaglitz and idlebrain. TimesofIndia source WP:NEWSORGINDIA is also just an interview for WP:PROMO of upcoming film. Fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject's career to consider a standalone notable page but also opting for draftify if the page can be improved with significant coverage with reliable secondary independent sources. Page also fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page was created by Mr Nerd 96, who is blocked for "Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use, ignored COI disclosure requests and continued editing NSM Public School, Vijayawada, in addition to potentially UPE-edits at Bandi Saroj Kumar, Rakesh Varre." RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 12 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! 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again, hopefully to find a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources currently cited could be called significant coverages, nothing really significant has happened to the person. Please see WP:NOTPROMO. In case the person would one day has enough notability, I don't oppose moving the article to userspace for now. Nihonjinatny (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjinatny, why would this article be moved to User space rather than Draft space? No one has asked for it to be userfied and the article creator is blocked. I'm just surprised at your suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I thought userfy and draftify are same in effect, it seems I was so wrong. Please teach me the essential differences of the two, thanks! Nihonjinatny (talk) 10:44, 1 September 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, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources are tabloid and the subject doesn't have notability to the degree independent of the movies they starred in. To make matters worse, some of the movie articles cross-linked are themselves poorly sourced. This article has also been deleted before, only to be resurrected by a now-blocked editor with a history of WP:COI. What changed from that time? Absolutely nothing. Rather than a biography of a living person, this article is a spamcruftvertisement. It's full of useless junk, pointless trivia, and serves only to promote the career of an otherwise non-notable actor.
Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:04, 31 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. While the arguments for a procedural Keep based on the number of pages nominated was not anchored in policy, the Delete side failed to attain consensus. Views expressed here suggest discussion would be more effective with individual article nominations or smaller groups, perhaps based on country of venue, which would allow using the appropriate country Portal to solicit views. Any editor is welcome to renominate individual pages or small region-based groups without delay. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

[edit]
List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the lists aren't notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Other problems exist: Verifiability varies, but many of these are poorly referenced. Almost all events cataloged are not independently notable. The lists don't have clear inclusion criteria -- "entertainment events" doesn't specifically exclude or include sporting events, for example. While the lists are mostly music performances, other performances are ignored. mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same basis:

List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Rogers Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Spark Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at The OVO Hydro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Madison Square Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Crypto.com Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Perth Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Rod Laver Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the Sydney SuperDome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the O2 Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Kia Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the Araneta Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Scotiabank Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Canada Life Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the United Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the Golden 1 Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at AsiaWorld–Expo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Civic Arena (Pittsburgh, PA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at the Toyota Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Central Harbourfront Event Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of entertainment events at Movistar Arena (Buenos Aires) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nonencyclopedic. WIkipedia not catalog. --Altenmann >talk 17:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These need to be individually nominated (and some were already kept once or twice before individually); some events are naturally excluded because they're not meant for public attendance (for instance, shareholder meetings or private religious rallies) or don't meet our criteria plain and simple (made for TV events or an obvious industry plant where those in the crowd are paid to be there and fill seats or all get free tickets). As always with these >5 article nominations I just don't see a bulk nom as a good way to filter through GNG/N. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the talk page for all of these, and the only ones that had prior AFD results were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers who have performed at the Mall of Asia, which closed as keep (dubiously), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainment events at Perth Arena, which closed as no consensus, neither of which had a second nomination, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. In any case, dumping these all down at once as separate nominations will not produce any more meaningful results than bundling them together, so this just isn't a good argument. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit confusing as "List of entertainers" was nominated under a different name. And I see the "Perth Arena" does have a previous nomination, but my first-time nomination links all work, leading here. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated them together because the concerns about failing WP:NOTDB and WP:NLIST and having weak inclusion criteria apply to all of the topics. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete against policy and guidelines: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. None of the lists have notability as a class. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. The variety of venues makes it impossible to vote here imv. And if i was to vote, I would argue most of these lists are about notable topics as a set and might meet WP:SPLITLIST (and vote Keep all). However, the nominator is in my opinion totally right regarding the fact that certain of these lists would need a better definition of their respective scope, and more sources. But that can be discussed on talk pages.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "imv"? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "In my view" Geschichte (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, any complaints about the bundled nomination are nonsense. These are all extremely similar, and dumping 30 listings at once isn't going to be any better in terms of coverage or participation. If (and that's a big if) anyone thinks that any of these lists are sufficiently unique enough of a case to warrant an individual nomination, they can always explain why, and nomination can be updated to have any like that separate.
    And second, Wikipedia is not a database of concert (or "entertainment" even) performances. Some of these are wildly unsourced, and for those that do have sources, they tend to be primary to the venue, or just some local news coverage that yes, an aging Def Leppard played here, but no one cared enough to show up. That doesn't pass the smell test for NLIST, as especially evidenced by the vague inclusion criteria. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep these need to be considered individually, Bundling them, while simpler for the person nominating, makes it very difficult for those assessing each articles individual value. While I can evaluate the worth of some venues, I can not evaluate all venues. I would also challenge any of you who a suggesting a sweeping delete of all to prove, on the basis of each particular venue named, that that particular venues list should be deleted. Some may be more appropriately merged into the venues article rather than deleted. The bundled nomination makes no sense in this instance. NealeWellington (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained immediately above, having 30 individual nominations dumped at once isn't going to make a bit of difference in terms of ease of evaluation, and will probably only serve to fragment discussion of this general type of article. And like I also explained, if you think there are any that deserve to get pulled out because they're sufficiently different, you can always just say so, and I doubt anyone would throw up much of a fuss about it. And it's not anyone's job to "prove" that an article should get deleted, an impossible task anyway. People have explained why they think these should be deleted, and just asking for more bureaucratic process without actually demonstrating how it might help just comes across as stonewalling. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A proceedural keep vote might be acceptable if one could show a flaw in the rationale being applied to all the nominations. That is, if one cited reliable sources showing a couple (just two or three) satisfied WP:NLIST, then it would be quite reasonable to argue that the mass nominaton raised questions about appropriate levels of WP:BEFORE and would make a stronger case for invididual nominations. But to date, not a single RS has been shown that satisfies NLIST for a single venue. These appear nothing more than directory listings and as such are against policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a "procedural keep vote"? I don't think I've ever heard of it before, and there are two such votes here now. Where can I read about the vote meanings used in AfD? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mikeblas a procedual keep is when the nomination for deletion contains errors, see WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. Worth noting, it's a different from a speedy keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I've heard of a procedural closure before, but never a "procedural keep". To me, they seem quite different: "keep" implies that a decision to keep was made, dismissing the AfD with prejudice ... when really that isn't the intent. (Or is it?) -- mikeblas (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All procedural closes will by definition be keeps in that specific instance (but not necessarily in general); in contrast "procedural deletes" are covered by WP:CSD. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When an AfD is closed keep, there's the implication that it shouldn't be re-nominated again until some time has passed. Is that also true for a "procedural keep" closure? I think that's so, and that's why I identify a difference between "procedural close" and "procedural keep". -- mikeblas (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing obliges you to evaluate the worth (do you mean "notability"?) of any venues. Instead, we're evaluating WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDB which applies to all of these articles: are the performances notable, as a group? I think they're not, and I think that applies uniformly. I don't appreciate the implication of laziness. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difficulty with bundling these articles together is there is no opportunity to address an individual article over the bundle of articles. If for instance I can establish notability for one article, then it will be deleted because the other articles are not notable or if one article is better merged with a corresponding article about the particular venue then the same problem applies. That is what I have an objection to/problem with. I accept there a are are instances where bundling is appropriate, but I don't think this is one of them. Sorry to ruffle your feathers Mike - it wasn't my intention. Please accept my apology, but my overall objection still stands. NealeWellington (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your apology. Is Wikipeidia process really so inflexible that individual exceptions can't be filtered from a bulk nomination without closing the bulk nomination and re-nominating the articles discretely? Seems sad, if so, that such a process stands in the way of doing the right thing. Not to be obstinate, but I don't know what individual nominations would change. If I re-nominated each article, I'd explain the same thing again and again: there's no demonstration of notability of the group of performances, and that doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST; plus, there are concerns about WP:NOTDB. How would that be meaningfully different for each? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NealeWellington Nothing in the process suggests one (or more than one) cannot be found notable. I'd certainly support a relisting individually if a couple could be found to satisfy NLIST...but no one seems to be able to identify RS for a single one. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting discussion for another week as it is not realistic to ask participants to evaluate 28 articles over 7 days and because discussion is still ongoing in this discussion. To answer a couple of questions, I've seen bundled nominations closed as Procedural Keeps and the next day, each article has been nominated individually so a nominator doesn't have to wait months for a follow-up. Secondly, I've seen individual articles removed from bundled nominations so it is worth the time to argue to Keep individual articles if you think that notability can be established. I realize that a bundled nomination can seem overwhelming to editors that are inclusionists but the Delete closure is not a done deal. Make your case, for one or two articles or for them all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. This bundling has been so convoluted that not every project appears to have been properly notified, including us at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convoluted? What do you mean? -- `mikeblas (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [32] as an example. I think you can count that as a Delete though. Borgenland (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that's an example of convolution. What am I missing? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grasslands Entertainment

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Could only find trivial mentions. C F A 💬 00:18, 31 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. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Americas

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

This is basically a directory article again, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, we have categories for this. We don't need list article for this. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 16 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! 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: I agree that the argument might not be valid, but Altenmann has a point about navigation. If someone is reading Wikipedia and looking for a list of telecommunication companies in the Americas, they probably wouldn't look at a category, and a template would be wayyyy too long if we were listing all the companies. (For templates, though, we could split the companies up further into Telecommunications companies in X country, but frankly that would probably overcomplicate a lot of things and it would take up a lot of time.) Heck, before I dove deep into Wikipedia, I didn't even know what a category was. (I am only replying here, not in the other AfD to keep discussion centralized.) ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:53, 31 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! 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what part of WP:DIRECTORY this fails. This list does not consist of simple listings, the topics here are not loosely associated, not non-encylcopedic cross-categorizations, a genealogical entry, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. Grouping telecommunication companies together by area sounds reasonable to me. We have lists like List of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, how are those lists not directories when this one, apparently, is? IMHO I think that the North and South America telecom companies should be separated but this does not fail WP:DIRECTORY. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand how this is any different to the previous List of telecommunications companies article I split it from.

I’m not going to get passionate about either position on the matter, I split the articles only for readability. Adriazeri (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's very against WP:OR. There is nothing encyclopaedic about these articles. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has got nothing to do with WP:OR, what are you talking about? Adriazeri (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I'm not seeing anything about these lists that violates WP:OR. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:39, 31 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. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa

[edit]
List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What wikipedia is not, is not a WP:NOTADIRECTORY which this article clearly is. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 16 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! 17:18, 23 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! 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what part of WP:DIRECTORY this meets. This list does not consist of simple listings, the topics here are not loosely associated, not non-encylcopedic cross-categorizations, a genealogical entry, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. Grouping telecommunication companies together by area sounds reasonable to me. We have lists like List of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, how are those lists not directories when this one, apparently, is? IMHO I think that the Middle East and Africa telecom companies should be separated but this does not fail WP:DIRECTORY. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:45, 31 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.