Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< July 20	July 22 >

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!} 23:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gen Z Revolution of 2024

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

A pure WP:POV fork of Kenya Finance Bill protests. No sources claim it is a different subject. Panam2014 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution is not a protest. Infact Kenya has had protest since 1969 but non were revolutionary. Bengula Jacob (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same subject per sources. Panam2014 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

the article adds new information stays aways from the protests and focuses on other issues.

* The article is properly sourced from major news sources that describe the event in a similar manner~~~~ DancingWisdom (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an exception as it falls in the WP:SPINOFF and WP:SUBPOV~~~~ DancingWisdom (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False. No source claims it is not the same subject. Panam2014 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, Internet, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus the article as a whole is very essay-like. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this article is WP:POVFORK of Kenya Finance Bill protests. Tylusine : talk 2 me 00:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

(All sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Multiple sources mention it as a revolution. It is not a WP:POV fork but rather a WP:SPINOFF and WP:SUBPOV. There was the intention to remove the government from the onset different from the Kenya Finance Bill protests.Bengula Jacob (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources does not claim "revolution" and protests are a different subject. Also, there are no sources centered about the revolution. Panam2014 (talk) 11:31, 26 July 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!} 23:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Jong-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass WP:SPORTCRIT—I only see database sources, no significant coverage. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Chinese article doesn't provide any significant coverage of him despite being longer. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Loewstisch (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 24 July 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!} 23:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Souliotes Greece

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

POV fork of Souliotes created after this edit by the author was reverted. Article also contains text copied from https://military-history.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Souliotes or another page originally copied from Souliotes circa 2013. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan The article does not contain data from the sources you have mentioned above.Thank you. TheHistorianPHD (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It appears that some text was copied either from an old version of the Wikipedia article or from another website that copied from an old version of the Wikipedia content. Either way, it's a copyright violation. For example, these sentences are clearly copied from somewhere: The Ottoman Turks attempted numerous times to conquer the territories of the Souliote confederacy.In 1731,Hadji Ahmed received orders from the Sultan to subdue the Souliotes and he lost his army of 8000 men.In 1754,Mustafa Pasha lost his army to the Souliotes as well.In the following years,Mustafa Koka came in with 4000 soldiers and Bekir Pasha with 5000.In the end,both failed to defeat the Souliotes.

You can compare that text to the April 2013 version of the article: The Ottoman Turks attempted numerous times to conquer the territories of the Souliote Confederacy. The first conflicts between the Souliotes and the Ottomans date back to 1635, if not earlier. In 1731, Hadji Ahmed, pasha of Ioannina, received orders from the Sultan to subdue the Souliotes and he lost his army of 8000 men. In 1754, Mustafa Pasha lost his army to the Souliotes as well. In the following years, Mustafa Koka came in with 4000 soldiers and Bekir Pasha with 5000. In the end, both failed to defeat the Souliotes. The identical text is underlined. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is evidently a disruptive POV fork. If there are copyright violations, then it should probably be speedily deleted. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obvious a biased POV-fork. Jingiby (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a mixture of copy-paste and madeup stuff. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have semiprotected this page for three days because of constant sockpuppetry. —Kusma (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 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 Uplift Storm trilogy#Temptation. czar 21:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temptation (novella)

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

While I am reasonably sure that the (also unreferenced...) Uplift Storm trilogy can be rescued (all three books that compose it meet NBOOK, see ISFDb), I fear this novella does not merit a stand-alone article and for now should be redirected to the trilogy it is a part of. What we have here is just a pure plot summary and my BEFORE failed to find anything of value (see also ISFDb with zero linked reviews...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh The signal/noise ratio on these searches is terrible, even throwing 'brin' in as another search term. I see nothing obvious on Scholar. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather surprised to find we had a stand-alone article on this and tried to clean it up a few years ago. I think it could be merged into the Uplift Storm Trilogy, which isn't all that long. I'm sure there must be sources for that article, Brin is a very well known author and the Uplift series is one of his major works. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Uplift Storm trilogy#Temptation - While the three main books in the trilogy each look to pass WP:NBOOK individually, this spinoff novella does not really seem to have much coverage. Even sources discussing the trilogy don't really seem to mention it much, that I have been able to find. While this article really does not have much in the way of sourced information, I think we can assume that the plot summary is using the novella itself as the source, so I would not be opposed to expanding the section on the main Uplift Storm trilogy to have more than a sentence of plot description. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Uplift Storm trilogy#Temptation, which is barely demonstrating its notability. These are stronger as a group. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I found a review of the anthology in PW that mentions the novella, but it doesn't really provide a SIGCOV review. There's also a review of the anthology in Kirkus, but it doesn't mention Temptation. Chicago Public Library also shows reviews from Library Journal and Booklist, though again, these don't mention Temptation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:30, 27 July 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 Offspring#Band members. Favoring the uncontested alternative to deletion per policy. czar 21:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Nimoy

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

Not enough media coverage to justify the biography. Fails WP:NBAND. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MUSICBIO , Leonard Nimoy's grandson, but there is nothing of accomplishment in music or anything else. — Maile (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant accomplishments or coverage to indicate passing WP:MUSICBIO. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The few news articles that pop up are around Leonard (actor that played Spock) dying and some mentions of the Offspring. I don't see notability for this band member. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this article doesn't meet notability standards. There are unreliable sources, and his achievements aren't enough to justify a standalone article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Offspring. He recently became an official member of a notable band, so his name is a likely search term and curious readers can go to their article. Otherwise, young Nimoy has no notable accomplishments of his own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Offspring#Band members. There are no RS that would help pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Offspring#Band Members, due to lack of reliable sources other than his relationship to Leonard Nimoy, thus failing WP:BIO JTZegers (talk) 04:02, 27 July 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. Merge option rejected as no target article was proposed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3683

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. Note: this is the second time this is article is nominated, the first was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 WP:TRAINWRECK discussion. C messier (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate list of galaxies. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate list. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There is no list of IC objects on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not propose a Redirect or Merge without identifying an existing target article or it will be impossible to carry out your recommendation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear sufficiently notable, and I see no great place to merge/redirect to per above. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:06, 21 July 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. Merge option dismissed as no target article was suggested. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 2816

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. Note: this is the second time this is article is nominated, the first was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 WP:TRAINWRECK discussion. C messier (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate list of galaxies. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There is no list of IC objects on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't propose a Merge or Redirect without identifying a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear sufficiently notable, and I see no great place to merge/redirect to per above. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:05, 21 July 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!} 05:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miraboi

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

A biographical article about a Nigeria man that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Music, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Critically fails WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG, utterly nonsense and promotional article that serves no purpose whatsoever than to promote the subject. No credible claim of importance. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep : as per nomination by various editors in terms of the same GNG Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Miraboi Mark (2nd nomination). Clean up is just required which I would be contributing later due to my time schedule. In 2021 appeared at the Ghana national TV as a musician with one of his top song featuring Peruzzi [1]and no longer do music. In 2022, he was dragged by Nigerians for a political act [2] further details nomination 2 can be cited [3]. Nominator 2 has also been a block user for 4 years now I just noticed that. Theirs no point AFD nominator replying. Look forward to other editors as I will be busy. --Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601, I don't understand this sentence: Nominator 2 has also been a block user for 4 years now I just noticed that. Theirs no point AFD nominator replying. Look forward to other editors as I will be busy. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Passes WP:SIGCOV.--Afí-afeti (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain how it meets WP:SIGCOV; the sources are promotional and bears the subject's quotes like "how I am being motivated by God–Miraboi", etc. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is kind of ridiculous -- a Commons photo purporting to be an award he received is not a reliable source -- and what in-depth coverage exists appears to be tabloid coverage, which, per WP:SBST is not WP:SIGCOV. Other sources appear to be WP:INTERVIEWs and thus ineligible as primary sources. Even though many sources appear in major Nigerian news outlets, the nature of the coverage limits their use to qualify for WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. (I see no evidence he meets any criterion under WP:CREATIVE.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Interviews and him giving money to charity aren't the kind of sourcing we're looking for. More of the typical Nigerian media hype for an otherwise non-notable individual. I don't see anything here we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are standard Nigerian pay-to-play websites that look like newspapers but actually reprint promotional releases. Note the frequent weasel words, while some are written in the first person. Those were meant to promote this guy's music and business but none count as reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly sourced interviews and run-on-the-mill publications. They do not meet the general notability standards. Best, Reading Beans 23:59, 25 July 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 Smith's Landing First Nation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsʼu Kué 196G

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

I couldn't find sources to add to prove it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge? It's on the national map, and it does appear to be claimed by the Smith's Landing First Nation, and that is the entirety of what I could find other than some very minor data. At this point I think it makes the most sense for the list of reserves for this first nation to be converted into a table with data from the official Canadian sites, as there's not really enough on any of them to make a separate article that I can see. Mangoe (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smith's Landing First Nation. A First Nation and its reserve can have two separate articles if there's actual substance that can be said and reliably sourced about them to support separate articles with, but they do not always need to have two separate articles as an automatic matter of course — so until somebody can write something more substantial and better-sourced than "this is a place that exists, the end", a reserve should be retained as a redirect to the nation that inhabits it in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Liking the solution proposed by Mangoe above of creating a unified table of all the Smith's Landing First Nation reserves. What is puzzling is that nine of the ten reserves listed on Smith's Landing First Nation actually can be verified on the Government of Canada website (see the example of Thebathi 196), but not seeing this "196G" there. Also, one of the sources on that page says that the band successfully reclaimed nine reserves, not ten, so was wondering if the tenth somehow has different status. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to add is that if you look at the article history, Tsʼu Kué 196G actually started out with citations like the other nine reserve stubs, but they were removed in 2020 due to failed verification. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Smith's Landing First Nation. It could potentially be expanded, but I don't know enough about the subject to make those additions. Yuchitown (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Smith's Landing First Nation. I don't know why User:Boleyn couldn't find sources. Also, it Googles well enough, yielding authorative sources such as this and this; though that doesn't mean it needs a separate article. Nfitz (talk) 01:42, 24 July 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 Firebrace baronets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Firebrace, 2nd Baronet

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

Baronets are not normally notable and there doesn’t seem to be anything that would amount to a claim of notability with this subject. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First Baronets are certainly notable, but not necessarily their successors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Firebrace baronets per WP:AtD. Baronetcies are notable but individual baronets not always, and this one apparently not (in Wikipedia terms, at any rate: real life is different). To assert that "baronets are not normally notable" is overstating it somewhat, however. Ingratis (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no evidence of notability as an individual. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no evidence of individual notability, and Firebrace baronets could easily cover the individual in proportion to the sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 21:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osirica

AfDs for this article:

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

This entire thing seems made up. For one it seems to claim that this "order" still exists and is operating since ancient times. ★Trekker (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC) The last deletion discussion is incredibly confusing as it seems to have resulted in a "Keep" without the votes actually making any sense (similar to the article itself).★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In some other languages, "osirica" can simply mean "things related to Osiris" (as it did in Latin), but in English it seems to only have this specialized meaning, the purported Egyptian proto-Masonic order found in some Afrocentrist fringe beliefs. There don't seem to be any reliable sources about it online. Most of the online uses of the term in that sense appear to be regurgitations of this Wikipedia article (which has languished in this direly underdeveloped state for nearly twenty years!). The article attributes the term to George G. M. James's book Stolen Legacy, but it doesn't seem to actually appear there. The only English-language results I can find in Google Books are in the works of Yosef Ben-Jochannan, who used it to refer to the Egyptian mystery schools that were originally posited by James, and in books that are later than and presumably downstream from Ben-Jochannan's. One could argue that this page should redirect to the article on Ben-Jochannan, but I'd prefer that it didn't. The word does have a meaning in other languages, and Ben-Jochannan's fringe theory shouldn't hold the patent on it. A. Parrot (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally no sources listed in the article... This [4] which doesn't seem a RS and some footnotes here [5]. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As others have mentioned, a quick search for academic sources offers little in the way of credible sources.

The verifiability of the sources that mention this subject have been widely called into question, so if the article remains, the content should change to highlight that this is a fringe theory (and reflected in a name change > Osirica (fringe theory))
Regardless of the verifiability of the subject, the lack of sources (and the lack of detail: off-cuff mentions are not significant enough) infer that this article does not meet standards on notability
What can be found on the wider internet mentioning the subject seems to be citogenesis/backwards copy, where instead of basing content on the existing published sources, Wikipedia has become somewhat the "authoritative voice" on this subject: [6] [7] [8], etc. Obviously, it's antithetical to what Wikipedia aims to achieve.

Neatly95 (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not seem to be any independent, reliable source about the subject to support an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:59, 22 July 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!} 05:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Renaissance House

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

Run of the mill social services/rehab/treatment serving the local community that we can expect every medium to large cities to have. The NJ.com source is about a roundtable that was held at the organization but not really about the organization. An article like this has no place in a global scale encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, even that of a non-profit. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking significant, in-depth coverage specifically about the organisation. Brief mentions or name-drops in local media don't establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign

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

Publication of non-notable and unverified information. Kamala Harris has not begun a presidential campaign nor has announced the intention of doing so. Following what to do before an AFD, the article was moved into draftspace to wait until an official announcement. Drafticiation failed, so next step is deletion. Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, and currently due to lack of actual sources, WP:Notability. Honestly, since this is 100% unverified, this might actual count as a WP:HOAX violation, since the "Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign" does not even exist yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An AfD is probably the worst possible action here. Right now the article certainly should not exist, and should be a draft as you said, but just because someone moved it back once doesn't mean we should jump into an AfD right away; by the time this AfD closes in a week, I have no doubt that Kamala will have begun campaigning or formally accept that she is the new presumptive nominee. I suggest instead working it out with the user who undraftified this article, @JD John M. Turner. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Flemmish. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would bet a thousand dollars that Kamala runs for president. This article should stay unless she says she wont run. Lukt64 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft: While the article clearly isn't ready to be published, that's no reason to delete it outright. While Harris hasn't announced a campaign yet everyone expects her to run, as evidenced by the amount of times this article has been created and deleted today. WP:SALT the page for now to ensure this doesn't happen again, and if Harris doesn't run after all we can just delete the draft, no harm no foul. Speedy keep now that's she's announced one.

PolarManne (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Harris has now released a statement announcing her campaign for President. TheSubmarine (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Per NYT, Harris just announced her candidacy for president. DecafPotato (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT reported Harris does intend to run^[1] 169.232.173.94 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/21/us/biden-drops-out-election/91ca4096-b7c9-54b5-bb98-db20353faca0?smid=url-share%7Cquote=Vice President Kamala Harris is already calling members of Congress. After President Biden endorsed her to lead the ticket, Harris called the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Steven Horsford, and said “that she intended to run and earn it and win it,” according to a congressional official familiar with the discussion. The C.B.C.’s political arm has endorsed Harris.

Keep: According to the NYT, "Vice President Kamala Harris says she is running for president" GrapesRock (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep She's running https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-election-07-21-24#h_fda5151d2b9b9e7d1836c629eb88c750 MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She just announced she is running. Gust Justice (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep. Has been announced. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -- There is the official statement. When this was moved back into mainspace, it was indeed a WP:HOAX violation. Now it is not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhira

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

I could be wrong, but I am not able to find any evidence this place exists. The coordinates listed don't go to a place with this name. Googling reveals just Wikipedia mirrors and Mari Shah Sakhira, which is a real place but already has a separate Wikipedia article. Article creator was no doubt working in good faith but seems to have had some other Pakistan place articles deleted for this same issue. Here2rewrite (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Pakistan, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The place does seem to exist; in Google Maps, there are at least 2 establishments that use the address. However there are no other significant coverage about the place to merit an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:50, 22 July 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. czar 21:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Merryweather

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

Follow-up from this AfD. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and lack of sources for existing content in article Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in a major music encyclopedia, which is copiously referenced in the article already. If it's covered by other encyclopedias, it should be covered in this one. Chubbles (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entire article ~~about a BLP~~ is original research with virtually no citations. The single reliable source I see is The Encyclopedia of Popular Music but this is a tertiary source, not a secondary one. Lacking ANY direct detailing in applied or provided reliable secondary sources, this is not a keep. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tertiary sources are built from secondary sources and by definition indicate the presence of multiples of them. Since when can we not use encyclopedias to source this encyclopedia? (I've written literally thousands of articles sourced from other encyclopedias). Chubbles (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't brag about it. I started looking at some of those articles linked on your user page. 4 out of the first 5 links I clicked looked much like this. (ex: David Friedman (percussionist), completely unsourced and tagged since 2013; Myrna Lorrie, no sources; John Betsch, completely unsourced BLP; The Blue Jays, completely unsourced). BusterD (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my page creations aren't nearly as numerous as yours and my older creations are not very good at all. But I didn't boast of creating thousands of articles without using reliable secondary sources as you just did above. BusterD (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the linked articles are unsourced, and none of them are non-notable. The primary encyclopedia I used that led me to make that statement was The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, which you are welcome to peruse and adjudge for reliability. Chubbles (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the examples I saw were reasons to extol any virtue in your choosing to create these pages without actual direct detailing, merely their highest accomplishments as recounted (in miniature and at a distance) in dictionaries. Please see my note on User talk:Mdann52. These are people, not just subjects. When people die, Wikipedia's sourcing standards remain important. BusterD (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles weren't the reason I said what I said; the ones that are sourced to Grove are, and Grove is the most comprehensive English-language jazz encyclopedia in existence. I did not request any showering of praise for the articles you singled out - all I did was point out that they meet our guidelines for inclusion. This is all starting to get rather badfaithy, and it's off-topic to this discussion, so you can direct all other helpful hints for improving my editing to my talk page. Chubbles (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PSTS. They're not forbidden but article should be primarily sourced to secondary sources while using primary and tertiary sources sparingly. It's not about the number of sources, but how much of the article's key contents are based on things other than secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That policy (WP:TERTIARY) is largely geared toward guiding people to cite original research over things like first-year summary textbooks. It doesn't address notability, because tertiary sources do establish notability if they are reliable, and the cited source certainly passes WP:RSTERTIARY. Chubbles (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cleverly ignoring my first point that this was an OR ~~BLP~~ with no reliable secondary sources, yes, I'll concede we occasionally use tertiary sources. We don't generally base articles solely on such coverage, however. So you have presented a single encyclopedia as RS. Nothing else? Delete. BusterD (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because people don't write encyclopedia entries, in major (reliable) encyclopedias, without a base of secondary source material from which to draw. In any case, this will seal the deal: he meets WP:MUSIC by having a charting record - he reached #199 on the Billboard 200 in 1969 (as Merryweather & Friends, playing in a band with Steve Miller, Dave Mason, and Charlie Musselwhite) with the album Word of Mouth. My source is The Billboard Albums, 6th edition, p. 697. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking the closer to discount the delete from User:BusterD, as they claim that WP:BLP applies. For their information, BLP is an abbreviation for WP:Biographies of living persons and doesn't apply to the biographies of people who are not living. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the closer is doing favors, I'll ask the closer something for me too! FTR, this article was written as a BLP, but the subject died while it was still grossly unsourced and made up. How about vast sections of purely original research? Doesn't matter? May we keep my delete assertion because somebody pulled this entire article out of their empty library of sources when the subject was still living? Does BLP only apply to edits on article while the subject is STILL alive? We can freely make up stuff about dead people? Good to know! BusterD (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP would have applied when the material was written, but not now, I'm happy to agree. Doesn't mean it can't be made up, and I suspect the article will get stubbified after this discussion. Unsourced statement can still be removed even if not a BLP, just there isn't an automatic presumption of removal on site. If it fails WP:V, it can still be removed (and if this is kept, I think this article will be pruned back substantually). Mdann52 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't prove what's written with sourcing and citation, then somebody literally made it up (as far as attribution is concerned). Might even be true, but just an assertion without sources. I would be satisfied with an outcome which kept but stubbified this article. And while I'm sure I have shown irritation; I'm far more irritated to be told "I've done this thousands of times" and the random examples look mostly like this (needing stubbifying)! BusterD (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://books.google.com/books?id=QgkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72 He does get slightly more than a mention in 1974 Billboard. This isn't really a basis for notability but I'm aware not everything is Google locatable, so I can't recommend either actions, but I urge those familiar with where to look suggest whether sources exist or not. Graywalls (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition the the encyclopaedic reference, there's also stuff like ProQuest 2776468179 in 2023 from the foreign publication PopMatters, along with briefer mentions, such as in People here. Not to mention lots of reviews in magazines, such as in 1974 in Billboard here. Seems to be a lot of stuff in Cashbox. There's no doubt that the article could, and should, be improved; but that's not a deletion criteria. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Chubbles' interpretation of WP:RSTERTIARY is more correct. The PopMatters and Billboard reviews found by Nfitz, along with any other offline articles from the time, seem like enough to meet WP:GNG. hinnk (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion including an encyclopaedia, Billboard, and Pop Matters so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 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!} 03:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Carey

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

Follow-up from this AfD. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and struggling to find any sources to support existing information in article. Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I could find [9], brief mention. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm uncommitted as of yet,~~ but this is a possible merge target for Neil Merryweather (since she was the lead singer of his band Mama Lion, and I expect Merryweather's article to survive vetting here). She may also meet WP:NACTOR if not WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have paid access to newspapers dot com right now (money is tight) but there seems to be a good amount of non-trivial coverage for her on there. "Lynn Carey" singer and "Lynn Carey" actress are the best search terms, it seems. If someone who has access could clip some of those and add them, I think there would be a good case of her meeting the GNG at least for news coverage. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another BLP page entirely made from somebody's recollections and album covers. No reliable sources at all. My reasonable BEFORE is unsuccessful. BusterD (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on abundant RS presented by User:GoldenAgeFan1. Given the current largely unsourced state of this page, it would be good if some of these sources could be used to back assertions made to date. BusterD (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked around other newspaper databases since it doesn't look like anyone is going to look for newspapers dot com articles as I requested and found several articles relating to Carey. I don't know how long the genealogybank links will last since I don't think they have permanent link sharing. Another note: I don't see why people expect to easily find sourcing for people that had a certain degree of fame that predated the internet by quite a number of years (decades in Carey's case). However, I think these articles display that she was once indeed notable, and that's all that is required to have article. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these bare mentions but the first two clearly meet independent, diverse, and direct detailing by RS. BusterD (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GoldenAgeFan's findings, which are worthy of the old Article Rescue Service. If you've time, could you take a look at the related deletions for Neil Merryweather and Mama Lion as well? I thought Carey's article was the least likely to survive, but with this much coverage, there might be a good case for keeping all three (and for a whole bunch of trouts to be served to overeager deletionists). Chubbles (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dele te~~ Neutral does not seem to be an encyclopedia page candidate based on sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This debate has recently trended towards 'keep' somewhat, but relisting to allow further analysis of GoldenAgeFan1's sources and additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable newspaper sources identified by GoldenAgeFan that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Siraj Suja

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

Non-notable politician who hasn't held elected office. He ran for the Magura-1 seat of parliament in 2001, but finished a distant third. The cited sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV at this time to establish notability for an encyclopedi entry. Prof.PMarini (talk) 21:58, 22 July 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 Keane (band). Changes to Wolf at the Door (disambiguation) can be pursued editorially. Owen× ☎ 18:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf at the Door

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

Song by Keane (not to be confused with the song by Radiohead). Fails WP:NSONGS: no coverage in multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Popcornfud (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails NSONGS. More like something that would belong on a Keane fan wikia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keane (band): found no additional coverage. Would also recommend a swap with Wolf at the Door (disambiguation). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funbag Animation Studios

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

Not a single source was given, and I was unable to find a single source regarding this that was neither user-generated nor a mere mention, so very far from having enough coverage for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Withdrawing as I appear to have grossly failed Wp:BEFORE. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Companies, and Canada. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even modifying the search to just "Funbag Animation" doesn't turn up much. This is the best I could find and its only passing mentions. Unless anybody finds something significantly better than that its a delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not having problems finding significant coverage, User:DanielRigal. National Post - ProQuest 329652135, Ottawa Citizen - ProQuest 240317878. Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First link does not exist, second link is paywalled but refers (by the title) to a series whose article does not contain the work "funbag". — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the (rather obvious) typo in the first link, User:Alien333. I don't know what you mean by paywalled. Not only are they are both accessible with your Wikipedia library login, but WP:BEFORE in Section D.2 (WP:CONRED) says to make use of the Wikipedia Library. Which is an absolute must if editing in the area of Canadian subjects, given most of the nations major papers can be found there, but not in Google or even newspapers.com. So I believe this is a BEFORE failure. Also, the former, Funbag is mentioned 8 times. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I really messed up. Thanks for the wake-up call. Withdrawing nomination, for what it's worth. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found several articles. Here stuck a deal with UTV. Government of Nova Scotia reports. Sale of assets after bankruptcy here. Book 'Reading between the Borderlines' also mentions it. Other articles are also there. Changeworld1984 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All except the Government of Nova Scotia are passing mentions, and WP:GNG explicitly requires significant coverage, i.e. not mere mentions. The Nova Scotia one might just push it across the border to GNG, though. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have Funbag in the headline itself and deal with the studio. These are not passing mentions. And these are just examples that this company has been reported on before. Changeworld1984 (talk) 00:07, 23 July 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× ☎ 18:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Airbus aircraft

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

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

Per WP:GNG. I have been unable to find reliable significant coverage on both topics, let alone any. Sources do exist albeit unreliable or non-independent such as Planespotters, OneSpotter and Airfleets and Airbus news releases just to list a few.

Per WP:NLIST. Whilst "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been", I have been unable to find any reliable sources talking about a list of preserved Airbus aircraft nor a list of preserved A320s. Some entries do have sources talking about their respective aircraft individually but the majority of the entries seem unverifiable with most of the information coming from the said sources above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related page <List of preserved Airbus A320 aircraft> because both topics are similar enough as they both cover preserved Airbus aircraft and also share the same issues. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Europe, and France. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of preserved Airbus aircraft and Merge List of preserved Airbus A320 aircraft into List of preserved Airbus aircraft - The article has a notability of every airbus aircraft that has survived, if you delete this article, it would basically be deleting the now merged F-WWAI A320 aircraft with it, I'd say that its unnecessary when there are plenty of sources out there on their respective articles, so I am voting a really hard keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airbus A320-100 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A.K.A. WP:Other stuff exists. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NLIST. There is no media interest in keeping track of airliners after they go out of service. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in detail to convince me?

Because upon looking at WP:NLIST myself, there's no mention of media in the WP:NLIST section. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", e.g. the media. (Tip: putting an asterisk before semicolons doesn't serve any purpose.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Clarityfiend. An interest of such degree is fit for Fandom and not else, not even here. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interest of such degree is fit for Fandom. True, but the problem with Fandom is that they can spread false information about any subject with no sourcing. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Articles both serve as planespotters' WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't serve planespotters anymore now. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been able to find some sources by simply searching their registrations.
Also take a look at List of preserved Boeing aircraft, that article was nominated for AfD but was closed as a keep, so I suggest that the same happens here, so that's also a second and third reason why I am voting for a really hard keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airbus A320-100 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem. The problem is that there are no sources talking about a list of preserved Airbus (A320) aircraft. And WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I was saying that I suggest merging list of preserved Airbus A320 aircraft into the list of preserved Airbus aircraft Airbus A320-100 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also talking about the list of preserved Airbus aircraft. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can we just close this AfD as a no consensus because I am so confused on this AfD discussion, besides there are many more lists out there that are much like this one. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As was said above, the fact that other articles exist is not a reason to keep an article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These said other articles are actually not necessarily on Airbus but rather Airbus' rivals. So I would rather close the AfD as a no consensus Airbus A320-100 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally going to move the A320 list to Draftspace as it was a W.I.P.

The same applies for the list of preserved Airbus aircraft despite the fact it was accepted for AfC at draftspace. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Airbus A320-100: Please stop moving the nominated pages for deletion whilst the AfDs are still opened. You have not gained such consensus to do so. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) and Merge (2) - per @Airbus A320-100. 121.45.242.35 (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Banned sock. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per the nomination and WP:NLIST. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 27 July 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× ☎ 17:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Klec

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

This Slovak men's footballer played in his country from 2013 until 2016 before moving to lower leagues in the Czech Republic and Poland. Secondary sources analysis from my searches through translation:

Žilinský Večerník is a blogspot containing an interview with just secondary content in the opening paragraph.
SME seems to be a decent source mentioning Klec scoring a hat-trick.
Dnes24 is a transfer announcement of him moving to Třinec on loan.
Dziennik Polski is another transfer announcement to Puszcza Niepołomice.

In my opinion, none of those sources above actually approach WP:SIGCOV that are required for encyclopedia. I have checked corresponding articles on him in other Wikipedia languages, but all of them likewise provide match reports, primary sources, and database. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look like he meets WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. I haven't found any reliable RS about him.Tau Corvi (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, there doesn't seem to be enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 24 July 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 action‎. Editorial choices such as changing a DAB page to a redirect should be pursued editorially, on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X.com

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

Redirect to Twitter as it is the clear primary topic in a WP:2DABS situation. Page view stats show views for the DAB peaked in late July 2023, when the rebranding was announced. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Disambiguations. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Afd is for deletion, not discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close: This should not be for deletion as it is still a beneficial DAB page. If you think "X.com' should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that should be a new discussion at Talk:X.com, not here. Also, "X.com" did not exist until August 2023 and per those stats, it has steadily decreased in views, so a WP:RECENTISM bias applies. This is also covering three subjects, not just two. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close. The nominator did not show that the article is unnecessary, misleading, unhelpful or in any other way non-compliant with Wikipedia policies or practice. The nomination is, essentially, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A valuable disambiguation page. I don't see any issue with it. Perhaps a majority will be expecting Twitter, but I don't feel the DAB page is problematic for that reason alone. It does seem like WP:RECENTISM. GhostOfNoMeme 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DPT, let's have a look at WikiNav for X.com which shows us the meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream for the month of June. There were 33.1k incoming views, which is a big mass of readers, yet only we could identify only 2.89k outgoing clickstreams towards the proposed primary topic (~9%), plus 1.21k to the historical bank topic (~3.5%), and 752 to the concept of single-letter domains (~2%) which is the first link.

A view of clickstreams from X.com for the last three months

From the clickstream archive:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv:

X.com X.com_(bank) link 1035
X.com Twitter link 1025
X.com Single-letter_second-level_domain link 507
X.com XCOM link 62
X.com X_Corp. link 47
X.com Main_Page other 41
X.com X.Org link 27
X.com XCOM:_The_Board_Game link 26
X.com X_(disambiguation) link 13
total: 2783 to 9 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:

X.com Twitter link 2041
X.com X.com_(bank) link 1816
X.com Single-letter_second-level_domain link 772
X.com X_Corp. link 108
X.com XCOM link 94
X.com Main_Page other 55
X.com X.Org link 46
X.com XCOM:_The_Board_Game link 41
X.com X_(disambiguation) link 31
X.com EXCOMM link 12
total: 5016 to 10 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:

X.com Twitter link 2893
X.com X.com_(bank) link 1214
X.com Single-letter_second-level_domain link 752
X.com XCOM link 177
X.com Main_Page other 85
X.com X_Corp. link 74
X.com X.Org link 65
X.com XCOM:_The_Board_Game other 28
X.com Twitter_under_Elon_Musk other 27
X.com X_(disambiguation) link 26
X.com EXCOMM link 14
X.com X other 10
total: 5365 to 12 identified destinations

So Twitter only overtook the other meanings recently. Since it's a very short, straightforward list, it doesn't seem likely that most of these readers were very confused. If we just discard all the traffic that didn't click through (which is like magical thinking, but possibly useful for the purpose of comparison), for June the ratios are ~54% Twitter, ~22% bank, ~14% concept. I wouldn't say this was typically considered primary topic. The trend line is favorable, so maybe in a few months time it might become more efficient to explain this inside the Twitter article and move this disambiguation page aside. --Joy (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting to look at overall monthy page views for these topics. Twitter has seen a huge surge in traffic over the last couple of years, but it's recently subsided. Given this general amount of interest, I'd have expected the surge in interest in Twitter as X.com to match it, but it didn't, it's only started to happen more recently. --Joy (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This data is insightful and admittedly furthers the prior consensus from the most recent RM at Talk:Twitter/Archive 10#Requested move 17 May 2024 that the "X.com" domain is not entirely the primary or more common name yet despite being synonymous with Twitter. Should any concrete data prove otherwise at a later date, a new discussion would need to be had regarding this, given that consensus directly affects this DAB. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutomu Kōno

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

Unreferenced, doesn't appear notable. IgelRM (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. IgelRM (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No hits on this person's name, only variations of the first or last name. I don't see any confirmation of his career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 21 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mélanie Charles

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. No third party sources. A google news search comes up with a namesake jazz musician who seems more notable. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Handball, France, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Apart from already cited article, nothing comes up. Changeworld1984 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is only one source listed in the article, and I couldn’t find any others. If you manage to do this, please ping me. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I per nom, above. I couldn't find a sinlge article even mentioning her via a Newsbank database search. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 24 July 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!} 23:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison (executive)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability IgelRM (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO - Five of the six sources are his own website, or otherwise interviews with him. A web search brings up Beatle George Harrison, but not this guy. The 2014 AFD on this (two keeps and one comment) failed for lack of response: . — Maile (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and more generally WP:N and WP:MILL. He’s just a middle manager. He hasn’t done anything notable. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 28 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava

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

I don't see the person passes WP:NPROF as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No third party news organisation has reported specifically on him. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very obvious case. While he has made a good start to his career, it is rare for associate Profs to meet WP:NPROF. Adequate but not notable publication record, no major awards, no major converage. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for author AK-Srivastava and keyword corona finds citations that look headed to a successful academic career but are not at the level required for WP:PROF#C1 yet. No other notability criterion is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. 3 sources on the page that are poor and primary. Source 1 is the subject's own homepage. Source 2 has a comment made by the subject himself and Source 3 is a link to a research/book written by subject himself. I cannot find subject's work that has made a significant impact and achievement in their scholarly discipline (nationally or internationally) and demonstrated by independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 17:43, 22 July 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 UniCredit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Pekao Investments

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

Fails WP:NCORP Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Poland. Imcdc Contact 09:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company is likely notable (pl wiki article is a bit better, states it is the largest investment fund in Poland) but both our and pl are lacking independent refs. Quick GS search suggests sources exist (ex. [10]) but I am not motivated to fix this - the company should hire a PAID editor for that. They certainly can afford this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is notable for its role and historical significance. Article needs to updated. According to this article, the firm has changed its name to Pekao TFI. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Changeworld1984 - can you point to any in-depth sources which write about the significance of its role in history? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So far we still are lacking in independent sources that provide significant coverage Imcdc Contact 14:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unicredit, none of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing the notability of *this* company, the sourcing all appears to rely entirely on information provided/published by the company, fails WP:ORDGIND as not "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unicredit due to article's lack of viable sources to fulfill WP:NCORP. Though these may exist, I agree with the sentiment that this does not obligate us to keep or fix articles that don't have such. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the academy plays a key role in the local community and its educational system, making it a relevant topic.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Can probably be covered on Grays,_Essex#Secondary_education. IgelRM (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there significant coverage beyond the October 2019 opening announcement? IgelRM (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page subject is important enough. Further notability likely to only increase as this is a new school. Rockycape (talk) 05:30, 24 July 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzammil Aslam

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

The creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, If you believe the subject has extensive coverage, could you provide the WP:THREE best sources that meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. Simply saying WP:GOOGLEHITS won't suffice — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib @Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Why wouldn't you consider We News reliable? Limited usage doesn't necessarily indicate that the source is unreliable. What do you think about this and this? These three combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, I'm not saying We News isn't a RS because it's seldom used here. Please re-read my comment. We News isn't reliable for many reasons, one of which is that the author who wrote about Muzzammil Aslam tends to produce sensational/tabloid-style stories. Additionally, all the sources you've provided (incl. this and this) are just announcements about his appointment as an Advisor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, making this a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Please allow me to ping @S0091: to get their take on the provided coverage/sources. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that pinging specific editors to get their views in a deletion discussion may be construed as canvassing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) this specific editor does not always share the same views as mine. 2) I'm not seeking their vote; I just want their feedback on the provided coverage. 3) WP:CANVASS doesn't explicitly prohibit pinging others. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib is correct that I do not always agree with him. However, I will not offer an opinion by being pinged to an AfD in which I have not already participated because even the appearance of canvassing is enough to sew distrust which is the last thing AfD needs, especially a contentious one which appears to be the case here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. However, @OwenX mentioned here that it’s safe to occasionally ping others for their input. But anyway I understand your position. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that NPOL does not cover advisors to ministers. There is no consensus that it does and no good reason has been provided to extend NPOL's reach that far. I won't !vote because I can't effectively search for coverage in Urdu. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Please take any references I've given in Urdu, copy the text, and use Google Translator to translate it from Urdu to English. Even if NPOL doesn't apply to him, I believe he still has enough coverage to meet GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We News appears to be reliable and is SIGCOV. Tribune and Dawn are trivial mentions. Not enough to meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts How about this one and this one? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts I've briefly explained above why I don't think We News is a RS. SheriffIsInTown Just getting some press coverage doesn't make someone notable or meet the GNG. Fwiw, Waqar Zaka has considerably more press coverage, yet his BLP was deleted because it failed to meet the rigorous GNG requirement. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used often on Wikipedia does not make a source unreliable. We News appears to have an editorial board and some reporting standards. I'm not seeing any huge red flags on their website. Also, the fact that another article was deleted is neither here nor there because we evaluate each article on its own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I hope you didn't overlook my previous comment where I shared two additional English language sources (TNN and Mettis Global) that provide detailed coverage of Aslam. These might help you reconsider and change your comment to a keep vote. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mettis is a trivial mention announcing his being hired. TNN is also routine coverage about him being hired. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I never claimed that the infrequent use of a source makes it unreliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misread your point above. Apologies. But the fact that it isn't used much doesn't mean we can just hand-wave away its reliability in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts, Noted. And that's precisely why I pinged @S0091, for a third opinion on this source. Also I mentioned Waqar Zaka because he also served as an expert in the same government, albeit in a different role. And he has received significantly more press coverage than Muzzammil Aslam. This was merely an example and not meant to establish a precedent. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib @Voorts The TNN story covers him as a person, stating he is a renowned economist, mentions his date of birth, two decades of experience, and leadership positions in several private institutions. It also covers his joining PTI, his previous role, and his educational qualifications in detail. Mettis Global discusses his appointment and mentions others who have been appointed as advisors, but the rest of the piece is about him, indicating his greater notability. The rest of the piece, like the We News and TNN stories, talks about his role as a spokesperson, his 15 years of business experience, and detailed coverage of his educational qualifications. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, I understand your point but I’m still not convinced. As I mentioned earlier, both stories discuss his appointment as an advisor. Thus, I concur with @Voorts that both are just routine coverage about him being hired. A clear case of WP:BLP1E. While I’m fine with citing them for WP:V, but imv they don’t meet the criteria for establishing GNG. In case it’s useful, the Mettis Global coverage doesn’t even have a byline. And does Tribal News Network even have an editorial team? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning towards Delete: the sources I found did not go beyond his nomination. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)~~ Changing my vote to Keep per the latest additions by SheriffIsInTown, that go past WP:BLP1E's criteria. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as falling short of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has significant coverage in Urdu and English news. Even Bloomberg also mentioned him. Daily Jang, UrduPoint, GeoNews all cover him. So, in my opinion, its KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- امین اکبر, Everyone needs to avoid WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. They'll need to back up their claims with coverage that discusses the subject directly and in depth and enough coverage to clear WP:GNG. By the way, Bloomberg's mention is just a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but he is not mention in Bloomberg only. He has significant coverage in Urdu and English news Ameen Akbar (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Once more, please avoid WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is a consensus that WP:NPOL is not the standard to meet here but instead it's GNG and there are different opinions on whether coverage mention is SIGCOV or passing mentions or routine. The burden falls on those arguing to Keep to supply RS. Don't just mention publications, please provide links to articles that can establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz The links were provided. In my opinion, the following three meet the SIGCOV and GNG. They are not merely passing mentions, but there is disagreement:

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not passing mentions, true, but all of these only cover him in the context of his nomination, so that's a clear case of WP:BLP1E (Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.), which makes this non-notable even without discussing the (discutable) reliability of these three sources. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333 You are overlooking the points under BLP1E. BLP1E applies only if all three conditions are met, but that is not the case here. He continues to receive significant coverage due to his role as a finance advisor in a provincial government, which exceeds the criteria of BLP1E. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown And can you please give the mentioned coverage after his nominations? With links, please? So far all you've given was only in the context of his nominations. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333 Here are just a few sources covering his role as the sole person managing the provincial government's finances. There are hundreds more if we include alternative spellings like Muzamil Aslam and sources in Urdu. These sources have emerged after his appointment, and such coverage will continue as long as he holds this position and the current government remains in power, typically for a five-year term. This consistent coverage exceeds the scope of BLP1E:

The following coverage is all from 2021/2022, when he was part of the federal government, making it two separate events:

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With these sources, you've got me convinced. Will change my vote accordingly. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm still not convinced he meets the GNG. The coverage provided lacks by-line and seems to be based on press releases — "he said this," "he said that." which is typical for a spokesperson activities. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb @Youknowwhoistheman Considering the above comment and the sources mentioned, would you be willing to reconsider your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did a lot of research, but I don't see this person meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:GNG). Youknow? (talk) 07:13, 24 July 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo López Castro

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

could not find secondary sources besides the BoxRec website that's already used as (the only) source LR.127 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Mexico. LR.127 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find anything that said passing WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. I also don’t know where the article can be redirected. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent sources needed to meet the WP:GNG. As the nom notes, the only source is BoxRec and a search failed to uncover any additional sources which could be used to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 14:49, 27 July 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!} 02:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory Response Network

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Behavioural science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "No reliable sources"? There is one reliable source. None of the included material would be found in the CDC article. My vote: Retain. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Per WP:GNG, the topic should receive SIGCOV in multiple RS, which having only one source does not satisfy. In addition, the coverage is simply WP:DICT, not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a merge. Longhornsg (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect as above as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Keep, Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep Upon a preliminary look, it doesn't seem very informative, well sourced, or well written. Now to check if other sourcing exists... Okay, we could use the official site to at least clear up what the LRN is. Google Scholar shows that a number of research teams have written evaluations of the LRN: Public Health Reports, American Society for Microbiology, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness... USA Today printed two opinion pieces from the same author on the subject [11]. Okay, I'm feeling weak keep. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For reasons given above. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darkfrog24. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Do the sources brought up in this discussion contribute to the "multiple RS" required?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 21 July 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of human rights articles by country

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

This article does not meet the criteria for a stand-alone list. This is not a general format or a specialized list. This article is just a list of navigation boxes that are designed to sit at the very bottom of articles. Additionally, navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of our readers, see mobile view. It also has accessibility issues, neither one of my screen readers could read this article properly. No prejudice if someone wanted to convert the articles in these navboxes into an actual list article. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main human rights articles of the countries should better include the relevant links. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very little practical use. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never seen an article that was just a list of navboxes. This doesn't really work, per the reasons cited by the nominator. I could change my vote to draftify if the page creator is willing to turn it into an actual Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are next to zero – page creator hasn't edited since 2012. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. as Kashmiri said, serves nothing. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a directory; I'd also argue this falls afoul of self-referentialism. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:33, 25 July 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 Third Watch#Main cast. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Third Watch characters

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

Unsourced WP:OR with no indication of notability. Not enough coverage by reliable sources according to WP:BEFORE. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant section in the parent article. A bit of the plot summary there could be merged there, but what we have here is a gigantic unreferenced pile of fancruft that needs to disappear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge, please offer an existing target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Piotrus. Mostly unreferenced, and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2024

(UTC)

Shooterwalker, did you see my comment? What is the Redirect target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I'm not actively participating, but Piotrus outright gave his target article (Third Watch#Main cast), which Shooterwalker followed up on. Do correct me if this is incorrect, but given this is the only relevant section at the parent article relating to characters, I'd assume this is what Piotrus is referring to. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just seeing the question now. The parent article is usually a good default choice, as stated in the first sentence of the article (Third Watch). If there is a problem with the redirect, it can be modified through the editing process. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:11, 23 July 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!} 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sreenidhi Institute of Management and Science

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

I cannot find any independent, substantive coverage about this institute. Their FB-page was discontinued in 2014. Fails WP:NORG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM that does not seem likely. Sreenidhi is a name; it means Treasure of Goddess Lakshmi or treasure of beauty. Since these Institutes are geographically distant from each other, one is in Hyderabad and the other was in a village in Kerala state, it is unlikely that they are related. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I guess I thought perhaps because of Sreenidhi Trust. The website said something with List of colleges affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. Unverifiable if it is still operational, so Delete if on sources surface. IgelRM (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources, just a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors and sites that generate stuff based on Wikipedia articles. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Madeforall1 (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Okagbue

AfDs for this article:

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

I don’t see how this subject passes WP:GNG. The only thing here was that he won the Gulder ultimate search. The rest are just biography with no source. No evidence he won those awards.Since 2023 the issue tag was placed no fixed has been made. Even when I had to google. The news source fails independent as they are likely stating his quote. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The subject has enough for a stub and likely C-class article. He has been a subject of the news since (possibly) 2020. This and this are interviews in RS verifying the Gulder Ultimate Search win and it is also stated here. One can sum up SIGCOV with all the pieces, This model and actor was born on June 23; this piece details how the subject shot into fame and here are some of the productions they were featured on. This source is also in RS, but it's such a shame I cannot translate its content. Passing mention here.
Note that every source I have provided above is listed at Generally reliable sources for Nigeria-related information. dxneo (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chris Okagbue is a well-known Nigerian actor and he is notable enough to deserve an article on WP. The article uses reliable sources. Therefore I think the article should be kept. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting

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

This shooting lacks sustained and continued coverage. This should be redirected to List of mass shootings in the United States, where it already has an entry. The additional detail in this article is (1) a play-by-play of the shooting, (2) an extensive biography of the shooter, and (3) the aftermath section. I do not think merging that information would be appropriate per WP:NOTNEWS. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pennsylvania. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Continuing local coverage to this year (there is a lot more but from 2022 and 2024 respectively)
Several pages of sigcov in the 2023 book "Copycat Crime" published by Bloomsbury
Several pages of sigcov in this 2019 PhD thesis
The depth of coverage was significantly higher than in most comparable events

This also doesn't really help, formally, for notability but this is probably one of the most well known mass shootings online for how absolutely bizarre the motive was, and there is actual analysis of it in the context of the perpetrator's deeply odd internet history and its status as a copycat crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the 2023 source again and it also refers to "Allwinn et al. (2022)", which is this, as providing sigcov on this case. I can't access it but this one appears to be entirely about this shooting, and seems to have been published in a peer reviewed academic journal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most shootings are not notable, but this one received extensive coverage relative to others. Especially critical is that, as PARAKANYAA demonstrated, it's being used as a WP:CASESTUDY. It's unfortunate that the people who worked on the article prioritized making it quickly over making it properly, but that's something that should be fixable with secondary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is important because it affected the local community and contributes to discussions on gun violence. There is Reliable that sources cover the event and making it notable. Yakov-kobi (talk) 18:55, 21 July 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. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Mackenzie Drive

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

Local roadway fails WP:GNG, WP:GEOROAD. One source fails verification, one source is primary (WP:GOOGLEMAPS), and the last does not show evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Sources found during a WP:BEFORE search are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS mentioning the road in the context of news coverage of events that happened to take place on or near it but not focusing on the road itself. (This had been a stable redirect for years until an editor recently began restoring and adding unsourced content without responding to discussion; and I propose this AfD as a basis to restore a stable redirect to List of numbered roads in York Region.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC) It was hard to find WP:SIGCOV amid all the trivial mentions of this road, but thanks to Oaktree b, whose sources clear the bar. Nomination withdrawn; speedy keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of numbered roads in York Region: per nom. Fails NROAD/GNG. All coverage is either trivial, focusing on something else, or run-of-the-mill updates and the like. C F A 💬 00:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep per Oaktree b's sources. There's enough coverage. C F A 💬 21:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major road through the region where I live; it pops up in news reports every time there's an accident or something happens on it... I found this [12], this [13] or this [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very major road, over 40 kilometres, that runs through multiple towns. Also meets GNG as noted above. Even if this not kept, I don't know why it wouldn't be a redirect or merge to Lex MacKenzie. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major regional road numbered as such. Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 21 July 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.

[1] ttps://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/21/us/biden-drops-out-election/91ca4096-b7c9-54b5-bb98-db20353faca0?smid=url-share%7Cquote=Vice President Kamala Harris is already calling members of Congress. After President Biden endorsed her to lead the ticket, Harris called the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Steven Horsford, and said “that she intended to run and earn it and win it,” according to a congressional official familiar with the discussion. The C.B.C.’s political arm has endorsed Harris.

[1]