Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 25	July 27 >

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 speedy deleted‎ by Pickersgill-Cunliffe per criterion G4. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.G Hkh

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. This also appears to be an autobiography, and it was deleted at a prior AfD a couple of months ago. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At best WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Zimbabwe. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BASIC. C F A 💬 01:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can now be closed as speedy deleted under G4. C F A 💬 18:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no sources with any amount of credibility Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and significant coverage. Prof.PMarini (talk) 22:21, 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 CyberJoly Drim which has now been created on en wiki rendering this an option. Star Mississippi 00:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonina Liedtke

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

She is an author of a sole short story; that story is notable (see pl:CyberJoly Drim which I just expanded; it won awards in Poland and was subject to literary criticism) - but she herself has not done anything else to merit a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. This article should redirect to her short story article, once it is created on en wiki, per WP:NOTINHERITED, for now it could be soft-deleted by redirecting to the page about most notable award that her story got (Janusz A. Zajdel Award per WP:ATD-R. I'll add I've done extensive BEFORE while expanding article about her story on pl wiki and I cannot find anything that discusses her outside the analysis of her short story; the few biographical information we have about her come from a short bio note on a page of a publishing company she works or worked for at some point. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that, as WP:NOTINHERITED itself points out, the "not inherited" principle explicitly does not apply to the relationship between aurhors and their works. For more on this, see WP:NAUTHOR. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gbooks has some coverage [3], but most are just names in what appear to be a directory... I don't find enough coverage to write an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the article on her story exists in en.wiki, then redirect to that article. While the story's article does not exist, our encyclopedia is the better for having this article on a notable story's author. A reader interested in winners of the Janusz A. Zajdel Award should be offered one blue link for "1999, short story* rather than two red links. PamD 08:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD Template ill does the job well - one red, one blue: CyberJoly Drim [pl] _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I don't see any reason to delete the article. Yes, she is an author known only for one story. Nevertheless, she received three awards for this story, and the story itself (published in 1999) is still the subject of critical and literary analysis (see pl:CyberJoly Drim). Redirecting to Janusz A. Zajdel Award is a bad idea - the article about the award contains no information about the author, except that she received the award. --Teukros (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If her short story is notable, but she isn't. It is best to have an article on her short story with a section on the author. Even if she wrote one book, it could be enough to make her notable. What the editors need to show is that she is notable enough with reliable sources. The awards are a good direction. I will oppose deletion if the result is to redirect to the award. In favour of a joint article on her short story and the author. O.maximov (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It does seem that a joint article on her short story and the author, as mentioned by O.maximov is the solution. Paragraph # 3 of WP:AUTHOR says The person has created ... such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series (highlights mine)) - so a single short story (not more significant than a single episode of a TV series) can't be considered as proof of notability as an author or creative professional. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Antonina Liedtke earned her notability because she received awards and made significant contributions to Polish science fiction.

after reviewing Her achievements in the article I think it should remain with improvements. Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Piotrus, any chance you could simply translate the article you wrote on her short story, so we can redirect this to an extant en-wiki article? Since you wrote the pl-wiki one, you already know that the sources verify the content, so there's not too much work to do here... -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I could do it, but at the same time I think in few years we will have AI-like tool doing this, so I am kind of not motivated to translate stuff (I wrote several dozens good articles on pl wiki but I increasingly don't feel to translate them over here, ditto for few hundreds I created on en that pl wiki is missing). To be clear: I say this because translating an article takes time away from writing it, and translating requires lesser skills, so I simply feel my time is better used writing new content, not translating stuff. Maybe @7804j could assign one of his translators to this? Or to my other articles, I could provide a list and c/e the translations :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to our translation backlog, but we don't have many PL translators yet at OKA and quite a big backlog so it may be a while before it gets picked up 7804j (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus That being said, if you have a list of articles that you'd like to be translated into EN, then that would be welcome! If you share with me a Google account, I could also give you edit access to our tracker at oka.wiki/tracker so that you can add the articles there yourself (with priority 2 by default for articles with good up-to-date references) 7804j (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. For who cares - her pl wiki article was kept b/c community there decided that winning Zajdel Award once is sufficient for notability, despite her having no other claims to fame (or published work). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the newly created stub on her notable short story, CyberJoly Drim, where I've copied over some of the information on the author. And a solid trout to Piotrus for nominating this article for deletion instead of creating a one-minute stub to redirect it to instead. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. editors can create a redirect if they choose to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Verhoeven

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

After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems to me that this actor/producer does not meet either the general notability guideline or notability guideline on entertainers. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael_Verhoeven#Biography: (father; mentioned there; or to Senta Berger#Personal life (mother; also mentioning him) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! @DanCherek, I actually found the information on the German Wikipedia page. If you believe the article [[Luca Verhoeven]] does not meet the guidelines set by WP:GNG, you can move or delete it accordingly. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A redirect doesn't really make sense to me, someone expecting an article on Senta Berga would type in Senta Berga - not her son's name. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Hello! Wikipedians, I found the information on the German Wikipedia page. If you believe the article Luca Verhoeven does not meet the guidelines set by WP:GNG, you can move it or delete it accordingly.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 20:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage to prove notability. The only source for both the English and German Wikipedia articles is IMDb, and even at that, his roles do not appear to be significant; appearing mostly in a single episode of the the TV series(es) that listed under his filmography. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:59, 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 keep‎. With one of the two Delete views changing to Keep after reviewing the expanded sourcing, we now have a consensus to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 18:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones

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

A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of the included sources, the only one that is a full length review is not from a reliable source. The rest are just small blurbs that could not really be considered a full review. Searches using both names the film was released under did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews in reliable sources that would indicate being able to pass WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find any in-depth reliable coverage either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the coverage on the BFI website is quite significant; review at Horror News (https://horrornews.net/95064/film-review-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones-2013/). Significant coverage here: http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/2014/05/28/sci-fi-london-2014/. Cannot really access the rest, except a review on a blog and the interview in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. The director has no page yet. A DVD exists. Another interview with the director can help develop the page: http://www.searchmytrash.com/cgi-bin/articlecreditsb.pl?gregggolding(4-14) for verification and production. All in all, I consider it's a notable cult film. I didn't search very hard and might look for more if I have time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ http://www.silveragepoets.com/music-and-else ;https://www.mrman.com/b-movie-boys-sci-fi-sexiness-in-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones---6428 (caution: might be not safe for work; can be considered expert blog; see author) ; https://projectedfigures.com/2014/12/31/struggled-reagans-2013/ (might be considered Expert SPS) ; or https://www.mondo-digital.com/sickpicks32.html (same comment). Mentioned there: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/001-trolling-is-possibly-the-craziest-movie-ever-made-about-the-internet/ All in all, the film does pass GNG and/or NFILM imv. FWIW I am willing to add those sources to the page and cleanup and expand the page with that material or with other sources that will be suggested.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Regarding HorrorNews.Net, for example, it's a full review (in their style) and the site is considered reliable by the project Horror (see also two threads at the Reliable sources noticeboard, the latest one insisting that especially pre-2020 reviews (roughly; after which they seem to have accepted to make paid reviews) may be considered acceptable; and that particular review is to terribly negative that I don't suspect a minute it was not independent). Many of the other include a paragraph (significant) or less, true, but some, more (see BFI website, which I find significant). I included a few sources that are obviously not independent, to show the article can be improved/verified. I should have organised this or maybe edited the page directly, but I started here, "first to knock, first admitted". Again, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is reliable sources coverage such as Sight & Sound and Horror News and others that combined shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Early !voters - please review and comment on the greatly expanded sourcing and content added since the AfD was opened. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (struck my first !vote) per new sources, that I think sum up to enough for WP:GNG. I also went past these sources and found them doubtful, but I don't do much work about movies so if WP:HORROR and WP:RSP say they're good, I'll lie down. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:07, 31 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. Closing a bit early, because, apparently, there is so much inaccurate information in this article that it could almost be considered a hoax article. If it reappears, it might be worth considering salting but not yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyke Nathan Uzorma

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

If all of the unsourced claims of supernatural abilities were removed from this article, I'm not sure what would be left. Until recently, this was a redirect to a book but has become the focus of a single purpose editor. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Paranormal. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books. Geswith (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books and credible news from Nigeria such as Punch newspapers. Geswith (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sourcing of the article is not enough to meet notability criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, nor WP:NAUTHOR. The three book citations were all written by him, and about him and are self-published by Xlibris Corporation, not a reliable publisher. One source is a wikipedia mirror wiki (user submitted content) and the "All Christian Quotes" website is also user-submitted content. There is one possible reliable source (Punch) but that is not enough to pass WP standards for notability. The article is WP:PROMO and largely unsourced, it may contain original research or possibly be a COI creation. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Haven't found a single independent source about him. A7 may apply here because I do not see a credible claim of significance. C F A 💬 23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these are independent sources.
kindly check this one:
- Okeke, Chukwuemeka. (2018). Spiritual Leaders of Modern Africa. African Scholars Press. ISBN 978-978-12345-6-7.
  - Offers insights into the lives and influences of contemporary African spiritual leaders, including Iyke Nathan Uzorma. [Reference to specific pages: p. 102-110 for discussion on Uzorma’s influence.]
- Nwankwo, Stella. (2021). The Role of Charitable Works in Modern Christianity. Faith and Hope Publications. ISBN 978-987-65432-1-0.
  - Discusses Uzorma’s philanthropic efforts through Mercy Store House. [Reference to specific pages: p. 78-85 for information on his charity work.]
- Johnson, Elizabeth. (2019). Biographical Profiles of Notable Nigerian Figures. Lagos Publishing House. ISBN 978-978-43210-9-8.
  - Contains a biographical profile of Iyke Nathan Uzorma, including his early life and career. [Reference to specific pages: p. 56-65 for detailed biography.]
- Adeyemi, Solomon. (2022). Religious Transformations in Nigeria. West African Press. ISBN 978-978-87654-3-2.
  - Examines religious figures and transformations in Nigeria, including Uzorma’s role in the broader context. [Reference to specific pages: p. 90-100 for context on Uzorma’s religious journey.]
Geswith (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geswith: How do you know of Iyke Nathan Uzorma? C F A 💬 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have been researching him for a long time. most of his claims have been substantiated by people all over the world. Geswith (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geswith, it seems from the portrait of him in the article - your "own work", that you do have some connection to him deeper than just researching him. Please explain. Netherzone (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geswith, I can't find any of those books in an online search. I tried searching by title, and by author and by ISBN number but came up cold. Could you please provide links so that they can be verified. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I don't think these are real books. Look at the ISBNs: "978-978-12345-6-7", "978-987-65432-1-0", "978-978-87654-3-2", "978-978-43210-9-8". I also can't find anything about their publishers. They look like hallucinations by ChatGPT or something similar. C F A 💬 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, @CFA, I could not find any of these publishing houses either. Do you think this is a hoax article or just a lot of AI hallucinations? Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the person seems to exist, but I have no clue if the information is accurate or not because there are no references aside from the "books" above. I imagine the creator has some sort of conflict of interest and most of it is original research. Regardless, it is safe to say they are not notable. C F A 💬 02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you can't confirm his "encounters with what he describes as advanced extraterrestrial intelligences or angelic beings of light"? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the late response. i will definitely get you the proof you require. Geswith (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously or per WP:V if I have to provide a rationale. I found this AfD through the academic deletion sorting list so I was curious how in particular he qualified as an academic. I find it interesting that the supposed "St Thomas-a-Becket University, Canterbury, England" that our article claims him to be a professor of has greater evidence of existing in Nigeria than in England. But I suppose that's far from the sketchiest part of this story. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear COI here and serious lack of notability. The two universities that he is supposedly associated with don't seem to exist outside of self-published sources about Uzorma himself. There is nothing here to justify a Wikipedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The article is presently undergoing editing, only 1 source remains as of this time, punchng.com, which may be the only source that may have some claim to reliability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Punch is listed as generally reliable in Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources but the article is essentially a long extended quote from the subject; it has no depth of coverage about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netherzone's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:34, 30 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!} 20:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RIMT University

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Punjab. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. The university does exist, but it lacks significant coverage to prove notability for a Wikipedia article. Google search result is a mix-up (it doesn't even appear as the top result) with RMIT in Melbourne, Australia and RMIT in Europe. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 15:51, 29 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 Symbian. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup stack

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

This does not appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -1ctinus📝🗨 19:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Symbian per nom. How the heck did this nothing of an article make it fourteen years without anyone noticing it? jp×g 🗯️ 11:48, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Rajkot gaming zone fire

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

Created by a sock. Significant coverage happened only when this incident took place. Since then there has been news about investigations but it does not have a lasting impact Srijanx22 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a current probe into the 2024 Rajkot gaming zone fire, a major recent event. This process, coupled with the event's impact and potential long-term effects, makes it a worthy subject for a standalone article. The event's ongoing news coverage on safety implications for similar structures, keeps it relevant and of interest to the public.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lot of reliable sources about subject of this article. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Important to history of state where the incident happened. Continued news coverage and has political implications too. Many more reliable sources available too. -Nizil (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has definitely passed WP:CONTINUED, since there's sources published as recent as hours ago, i don't know if it justifies keeping the article, as i'm not 100% sure how WP guidelines work, so i'm just leaving this as a comment. Scs52 (talk)

Scs52 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Recent sources claim that new rules for amusement rides and gaming zones are being implemented as a direct result of this event^[1], so i'm pretty sure this article now passes WP:LASTING Scs52 (talk) Scs52 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Wall (India)

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

Only coverage happened was actually from a couple of news outlets during June 2022 - August 2022. No coverage since. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Freedom Wall (India) was the subject of a few brief, local news reports in 2022. It was a short blip, with no lasting importance. The topic is also not very notable and does not meet the platform's standards for inclusion. It also fails the WP:NOTNEWS guideline, which advises against articles on temporary topics.--AstridMitch (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with it failing WP:NOTNEWS as coverage of the topic being only temporary. Prof.PMarini (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Interesting subject for a mural, but not enough to raise it to article status. I cannot find a page to suggest a merge..--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 29 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebPros

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

This is an article about an investment company that does not meet notability. The company has one notable product in cPanel through acquisition. The sourcing in the article is what looks like a regurgitated press release, a definite press release and a link to Oakley Captial which is just their web site and no mention of WebPros. I cannot find any coverage to establish notability, only more press releases. Whpq (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Luxembourg. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in independent sources at all. Only press releases. C F A 💬 18:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also recommend salting because this has been created & rejected as a draft twice (Draft:WebPros (company), Draft:WebPros) before being recreated in mainspace. Likely some type of WP:UPE. C F A 💬 18:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage, except for local and industry-related sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 31 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ambra

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

Ambra played 164 minutes at lower Italian club of AlbinoLeffe and does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Futbol Portal is a rumor about his potential transfer to Premier League followed by interview analysis. Zahori is another interview but I'm not sure how reliable it is. SME is yet another interview but I can't access due to paywall. Neither of these count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 17:25, 26 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꒱˚｡⋆ 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no accomplishments or sources that form a basis for an article. Geschichte (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability requirements, neither GNG nor SNG for athletes. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Delete per above. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't found any sources that would prove his notability.Tau Corvi (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Osei III

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and many of the references presently used are non-RS, unfit for a BLP. toweli (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Ghana. toweli (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. There's nothing to suggest Osei III is notable D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:56, 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 Prince of Qin (Ming dynasty)#Zhu Zhigeng. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Zhigeng

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. No significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and China. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince of Qin (Ming dynasty), where he already has a blurb that substantially if not fully includes all the information currently in the article. This fella has no biography in Dictionary of Ming biography, 1368–1644, vol. 1 (he'd be around p. 294), nor indeed in 明史, where he is allotted a measly thirteen graphs (in 卷116), stating he succeeded to the Principality of Qin and died without heirs in Yongle 22. It's never a great sign when the sole source of an article is a Shilu, which are primary sources. There may be other specialist sources somewhere ("秦僖王" "永樂" might be my search strings if I were to look for some, which I'm far too tired to do at the moment). I'm not especially hopeful about the existence of more sources. Folly Mox (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I should say that in my experience, the Dictionary of Ming biography is rather picky, and no where near as comprehensive as the equivalent modern efforts for the Western and Eastern Han. But his absence outside of that is still telling. – Aza24 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree it's a pretty selective source. I mentioned it because I checked, and upon reread agree that it looks like I'm arguing that the absence of an entry in Dictionary of Ming biography is evidence of non-notability, rather than non-evidence of notability. Sometimes my words are not good. Folly Mox (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete – Per FM. Aza24 (talk) 21:37, 29 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald D'Mello

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

I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV for this goalkeeper that only played in 3 professional games. While searching for Gerald/Gerard D'Mello, I found Deccan Herald, Herald Goa, Navhind Times and Telegraph India, all of which are passing mentions. If this article is kept, we should consider moving it to 'Gerard D'Mello' as this seems to be a more popular spelling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Goa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:58, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gjinaj

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG here. I have searched Albanian sources and found nothing better than Panorama, a passing mention about a disciplinary issue. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. The only coverage are stats posted on sports sites, not enough to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:16, 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 keep‎. Closing a bit early, WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gogui, Mauritania

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm its existence. I found information on a town of this name in Mali, near Mauritania, but we shouldn't keep this if we can't verify it. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment The very first GHit explains it: it's the other side of the border crossing. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment A search on الموريتانية كوكي shows various sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A commune of Mauritania, has sources and has been expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The IOM Regional Office for West and Central Africa makes it clear there's a "Gogui Zemal and Gogui Mali on either side of the border." ^[2] DarthCloakedGuy (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It obviously exists given comments above so WP:GEOLAND applies. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the sources cited in the article show, Gogui is a busy border crossing, the main point through which Mali obtains goods from outside. A simple search on Google shows many more sources. It is constantly in the news. This is a frivolous nomination. See also Kouroudel and El Verea. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. This has been withdrawn by the nominator per improvements made to the article. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Verea

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

~~I couldn't find sources to add to show it exists.~~ Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists.[4] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per improvements made. Thanks, Clarityfiend. Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kouroudjel

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm it exists. Refs in other language WP articles didn't lead anywhere. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find relevant information about the place. Even Google Maps doesn't have it. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND once you figure out the mis-spelling: "Kouroudjel" brings up a town at N16.304° W11.497°. This research article maps the oases around the village. I cannot confirm that 3,700 people live there (2000 census) but it's definitely a place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A commune of Mauritania and has sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given SportingFlyer has identified the mis-spelling, it is apparent that this passes WP:GEOLAND. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND as there is many good sources given in the page Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 31 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. Star Mississippi 17:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Journalism Project

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. There are the different universities as possible WP:ATDs, but none of them are obvious targets. Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Organizations, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marked for notability concerns since 2015. Unreferenced and fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 29 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. Star Mississippi 17:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sink

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

A WP:BEFORE search failed to find any significant coverage of this biography article to meet WP:NBASIC. The most I could find were blog reviews of his books and interviews, which fail the threshold of significant independent sourcing. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Software, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A few scattered mentions, but nothing extensive found: [5] and [6]. Not enough coverage for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's quite a few hits on ProQuest for him, but as far as I can tell, all of them are in relation to the company SourceGear, or some other tech firm. (i.e. passing mentions that don't meet WP:SIGCOV). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related AfD for the author's book: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Version Control by Example. Cunard (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Squirrels

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

As much as it pains me to nominate my electronic rodent brethren (lol) for deletion, I was unable to find any sources other than the one I added yesterday while searching — it also does not provide significant coverage of the subject. The band fails the notability guideline for musicians. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Seems like we're good for a soft deletion here? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

personally thought an 18 year old article deserved a relist but no objection to a SOFT deletion. Want me to close @TechnoSquirrel69? Star Mississippi 14:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought you'd missed that there were no objections and figured it would save some time. If you'd prefer to see some discussion, however, I have no problem leaving it open a bit longer. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also wasn't able to find any significant coverage. toweli (talk) 16:13, 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. Star Mississippi 01:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French films of 2026

(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)

Two WP:TOOSOON lists of entirely redlinked films by presumed future release dates, referenced entirely to subscriber-locked directory entries in an internal industry "films in the production pipeline" database rather than reliable sources. To be fair, the United States does already have lists for both of these years, so I can't argue that we never let lists of films exist this far into the future -- but the US lists comprise films that (a) already have Wikipedia articles to link to under WP:NFF provisions, and (b) already have WP:GNG-worthy sources present to support the presumed release dates, neither of which are on offer here.
These can both be recreated in 2025, 2026 or 2027 when there's reliable sourcing to support listing bluelinked films, but we don't already need either of them now if they're only using primary sources to support red links. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could these be merged with the 2025 article to a broader List of upcoming French films? Presumably some of the "TBA" entries on List of French films of 2025 will slip to 2026. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a thing in theory, but inclusion in it would still have to be supported by reliable sources — so none of the films here could even be merged into it in the first place without better sourcing for them than was used here. (I'm also already on the record as being opposed to even organizing "List of Country films of YYYY" lists by release date instead of by title anyway, as that causes problems like festival-premiering films being unable to get listed at all until a commercial release date is known when they should be listable the very moment any film festival announces its program, but that's not the central issue here since the films aren't properly sourced regardless of whether the list were organized by release date or film title.) Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's too soon for any of the individual films to have an article and too soon to have a list of them. Mgp28 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. As the person who nominated these two pages for deletion admitted themselves, there are already equivalent pages for American films. Moreover, the unnecessary concern for more sources has been addressed. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good grief, the "delete everything" crowd on Wikipedia is so exhausting. Do you know how long it takes to put these together? Nominated for deletion minutes after the page was created! As it stands, both of the pages are already greatly expanded and no longer the same pages that they were when Bearcat wanted to delete them, and all the "concerns" have been addressed. Thus:
- As noted by the person who wants to delete the film, SUCH PAGES ALREADY EXIST FOR AMERICAN FILMS. There is no reason whatsoever why equivalent pages for French films should not be allowed.
- I had initially included one source per film as it is how these lists are typically formatted. However faced with the ridiculous request for more sources, I have pointlessly spent four times as much time to quadruple the number of references per title. This was the main concern and it is remedied. These titles are now better sourced then any other film list on Wikipedia.
- The "fact" that the lists of 2026 & 2027 American films are only comprised of "bluelinked" titles is false. They are either bluelinked to something else or not linked at all. Some contributors on Wikipedia are misguided and just hate seeing red links. There is absolutely nothing wrong with red links on a page. Red links are not a bad thing. They are a signal that something that should have an article doesn't yet, and an invitation to a contributor to create that article
Happy Evil Dude (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that lists exist for both 2026 and 2027 in the United States does not automatically slamdunk the need for these, as it's entirely possible that the American lists shouldn't exist either, and Wikipedia lists do have to have some blue links in them to become justifiable. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every project is a redlink and extraordinary events can happen; wait until mid-2025/26 to create this. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. Full of red links. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TOOSOON and the page being full of red links. Svampesky (talk) 20:54, 30 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× ☎ 12:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Fernando de Aguiar

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Promotional also. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Brazil. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a doctoral student he does not yet meet WP:PROF (how I found this AfD) and as a failed political candidate he does not meet WP:NPOL. We have no evidence of any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His UN award helps, but it's not enough to establish notability on its own. Doesn't pass GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:26, 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 Public image of Kamala Harris. There is rough consensus that this topic would be better covered within a broader article, and that a standalone article is not warranted under our policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 10:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What can be, unburdened by what has been

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

This phrase has no significance separable from Kamala Harris#Public image. It is mentioned by some reliable sources, but the articles are not actually about this particular phrase, they are about her public image/memes in general. A redirect or merge would be more appropriate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator. Do we really need standalone articles on each Kamala meme (see We did it, Joe! and You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?)? What we need is an article titled Public image of Kamala Harris with a 'Memes' subsection. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (NOTE: I have now created such an article). —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don’t see what the issue with it is. We have Thanks, Obama for instance, as well as articles for other standalone, culturally relevant and notable quotes from public figures (We begin bombing in five minutes, Let’s Go Brandon (not a quote but still a noteworthy meme)). — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with Thanks, Obama and this is the level they were embraced. "Thanks, Obama" was not only an internet meme for several months, but also embraced by Obama and his administration. This article references something Harris has said only once and barely acknowledged by anyone other than Twitter users. Kelavandoril (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has not said it only once. What can be, unburdened by what has been is practically one of Harris’ catchphrases. Please get some additional context regarding this quote from the article, its sources and other online resources. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the article has had over 50,000 page views since its creation on July 23rd. Perhaps consensus can at least try to be for a redirect to Harris' main page or something (if we're converging towards deletion), as this is clearly a notable quote of hers. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - all the sources in the article have a passing mention of this meme, not significant enough coverage to support its own article. Yeoutie (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does an encyclopaedia really need a new article for every quote from American presidential candidates? Isn't this all getting a bit ridiculous? I despair at the direction of this project. AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"America!": F*** yeah! " — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now that a much better article to host this has been created. A long-ish or medium article is much better than several stubby articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this opinion. Merge on style grounds.

Should this quote grow into something so big it requires a separate article it can be isolated out at a later date. RadostW (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Baffling! 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would have done it myself already had Public image of Kamala Harris existed a couple days ago. Obviously not enough content or substantial coverage to warrant a standalone article. I don't see any evidence it's a "catchphrase", it's just a key phrase used in the stump speech. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Public image of Kamala Harris#Memes, since the content seems entirely covered there now. – Editør (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming a sentence defining a politician who aspire to be the main political figure in the country. She said it and and because there are other sentences of similar characteristics generally help to define the politician character, her knowledge, her political acumen. If she loses the election this time and never run again, these sentences could become historic and referred as part of the process of losing.

It has a pedagogical meaning to her political life and will be in history explanation of the life of the USA.

I will leave there. EBurbano (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. We really do not need individual articles for every single quip. Wikiquote is a thing, and if notable enough to be on Wikipedia, put it under an article collecting other ones, such as Dan Quayle#Perceived gaffes. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. While "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" may be independently notable, this quote sure isn't. We don't need an individual page on every viral quote by a politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loytra (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It definitely passes GNG for a stub article (its current size). The sourcing is good. Maybe merge is best, but deletion would be wrong.-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge. I agree with DvcDelvngis, it's a quote. Plus it's WP:TOOSOON Somegenerichandle (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge , it is certainly notable enough since she's used it since 2011 or something like that and uses it everywhere lol but it's probably not notable enough to be an individual article. We did it Joe and You didn't fall out of a coconut tree have infiltrated massive meme culture, this one hasn't yet. Nkulasingham (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Public image of Kamala Harris#Memes. We should consider the ten-year test for viral quotations and be deliberate when creating new pages for quotations. --Enos733 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable quip with widespread coverage of WP:RS. GobsPint (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DUP, something short that is significantly overlapped should be merged. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is Harris' most notable cathphrase, it is covered widely, and is well-sourced (per WP:RS). It is as notable or perhaps even more notable than You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?, and far more notable than We begin bombing in five minutes. --Plumber (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see just how many more references the coconut tree has, not to mention how 3 (that's 30%) of this article's citations are primary. The "unburdened" phrase seems to have the same notability as the latter article you linked. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything missing from Public image of Kamala Harris#memes and redirect. There's simply no reason to have a separate article for this. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Either option is acceptable for the reasons expressed above. BootsED (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable catchphrase stated by a major party presidential nominee Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to say to the substantial amount of "merge" arguments? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎, per WP:SNOW. jp×g 🗯️ 10:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements

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

This list is just getting bigger and bigger. It appears to violet "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts". Georgia guy (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remaking my argument as the last one didn't make sense. Keep as I believe that the vast majority of these people and sources meet WP:Endorse. This article does not have a major problem (anymore) with WP:Twitter and I would argue that the editors have done a good job with keeping up on finding better sources. I don't see what argument could be made in favor of "significant" secondary sources as that in my opinion is subjective and I can see that leading to a significant amount of reversion of edits due to "this individual/organization is not significant enough". If someone can make an argument in terms of a framework to determine significant coverage I'd be open but we shouldn't delete the entire article because there's some bad apples. Flames675 (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my support for Speedy Close as there is so far no dissent and also WP:Snowball Flames675 (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Endorsements should be extremely publicized and wikipedia is a great medium to assure public information with reliable sources. If there is a Wikipedia page about a certain figure and if that person endorses publicly, then that information should be made available in this page. I hope that this endorsement page lives until the election (as I hope that Donald Trump's one subsistes too). 88.157.166.6 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For good measure you should place an AfD for List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements as well, let’s see how well it will go for you. Bohbye (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is common on Wikipedia at this point, it is backed by reliable sources, and it serves use to voters and future political analysts. Also speedy close per WP:SNOW. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it’s very important for the campaign to see. Jimbo218 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Precedence exists. Does not make sense to delete this and leave all the past endorsement articles up. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close. I don't see why this deletion nomination was ever brought up in the first place. Other pages exist for List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, a List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign political endorsements, and a 2024 version for both of them, and they're all equally long. We have pages going back several election cycles solely for endorsement purposes, and it's common practice to list notable endorsements on literally every single federal and state campaign if there's enough notable individuals. The whole reason there's a whole page for president is because it would take up too much room on the main page. There is quite literally no argument in favor of this.Flames675 (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

In fact I would argue that this page is one of the shortest I've seen, considering the 2020 page for Biden has literal sub-pages for its categories and that has never been a subject for deletion. Flames675 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument in favour either. U-Mos (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but urgently review the scope of these list articles to limit their indiscriminate information. My view is only exceptional non-political endorsements (e.g. Charli XCX for Harris, which has significant secondary coverage) should be listed. See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements (2nd nomination), which I started. U-Mos (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is an essential page for the next few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacob01 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I think both this article and List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements need to be trimmed though. Keivan.f^Talk 14:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list is of public interest, it is already limited to consist of people of note (though I suppose I might agree that there could be some limit of non-political figures - it is not close to that point for me at all now), and it has been common practice for a long time to have information like this on wikipedia and, when the list becomes too long for the "mother page", pages like this one are the logical result. Alexander Bonaparte Caesar (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - likely a WP:SNOW. We have a long tradition on Wikipedia of having endorsement lists of candidates for major elections, which is why we even have a specific WP:ENDORSE guideline. In fact this list is currently half the size of her opponents list and yet the OP didn't nominate that list. This AfD will likely be covered as yet another by media researchers on the systemic gender bias on Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page shouldn't be deleted, since this is a list of endorsements for a United States presidential election candidate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.44.198 (talk)
Keep There needs to be a discussion outside of AFD whether pages of endorsements should be kept and what content these pages should include. --Enos733 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is standard on WP at this point. Bohbye (talk)
Speedy keep and close. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is not "indiscriminate" as long as the entries comply with Wikipedia:Political endorsements. Cullen328 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forecasting a Snow keep on this one; we go with obvious consensus, not Beltway wonks wanting a brokered convention and party splits, and the cruft will be dealt with in time. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In two years, will anyone care?? —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, historians and book length biographers will care, and we create this type of article for their benefit, as well as for the benefit of tomorrow's and next week's readers. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Donald Trump has a Wikipedia page of endorsements, I believe Kamala Harris is entitled to a page as well. -AdamT777 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:SNOW, the Snowball Clause. This is a list of endorsements of a U. S. President Election Candidate, like Donald Trump has one, why can't Kamala Harris have one as well? Plus, Raladic has a good point, because this list isn't even half the size of Donald Trump's page and that hasn't even faced a WP:PROD anytime. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Raladic, AdamT777, and mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo. DJMcNiff (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above, no need to delete article listing endorsements of a major presidential candidate. Haruka Amaranth 03:36, 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 speedy delete‎. Speedy deleted as a CSD A10. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Quota Reform Movement and the Rise of Violence

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

AI-generated, largely unsourced duplicate of 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement. Parts that are cited appear to have had their citations tacked on after the fact, so verifiability is pretty doubtful. Not suitable for WP:BLAR as the editorializing title is not a reasonable redirect. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A less edited version of the article 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement. WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant fork of existing article. --Soman (talk) 06:46, 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. Star Mississippi 17:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D

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

The 2006 AfD nomination calling this original research was obviously correct on the merits. Unlike other comparison articles, for which there is often good sourcing (as niche publications may have deep dives within a topic area), this only compares two products, almost exclusively with primary sources that only mention one of the products. Mach61 11:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mach61 11:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason for us to have a page for this, and it was only kept because of Wikipedia at the time basically being the wild west. λ NegativeMP1 21:14, 29 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. Closing as no consensus to delete after weeks of relistings and discussions. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Baff

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ella Baff

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

Nothing that would qualify under the general notability guideline. Lots of problems with inadequate sourcing and WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets notability requirements including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:Basic per available sources [7][8][9][10][11][12] Ednabrenze (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of sources, and 3 or 4 of those sources passes the WP:DEPTH requirement, seems pretty notable if you ask me.

Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A program officer for arts and culture is simply an office job inside the foundation, nothing notable that gets you an article. Sourcing is a mix of PR items and confirmation of appointments to various positions, none of which are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is better known for her work as the executive and artistic director of the Jacob's Pillow dance festival, than for what she did while working at the Mellon Foundation. I am adding in details now. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b - I invite you to re-consider the article now that I have made multiple additions and shifted the focus to make it clear that her primary impact is at Jacob's Pillow DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New sources are more about Jacob's Pillow, not about this person. Not really helping prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For others to consider, I think the top three sources about Baff are these (selected because of the extended coverage that spans multiple years):^[3]^[4]^[5]. I further think that she meets WP:CREATIVE for her work with Jacob's Pillow (criteria #4, which in part says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." That being said. I look forward to hearing what others think. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.deccanherald.com/india/gujarat/rajkot-fire-tragedy-gujarat-govt-frames-model-rules-to-regulate-gaming-zones-amusement-rides-3134821
^ https://rodakar.iom.int/fr/news/exercice-de-simulation-gogui-les-autorites-mauritaniennes-et-maliennes-se-prepare-pour-la-gestion-des-crises-risque-de-deplacement-des-personnes
^ Gere, David (1988-01-03). "Baff: Cal Performances point woman for dance". Oakland Tribune. p. 72. Retrieved 2024-07-13.
^ Gordon, Ronni (1998-04-19). "No rest for new head of Jacob's Pillow". The Republican. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-07-13.
^ "After 17 Years of Devotion, Ella Baff Exits Jacob's Pillow". HuffPost. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2024-07-12.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:04, 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 redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Star Bharat#Drama series. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dafa 420

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 08:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Bharat#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Bharat: Redirect to parent article. No standalone notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GUSE

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

The article lacks of WP:GNG, since it is a project of cloud infrastructure with little overall impact. It seems there are a few other project-related articles that are related to the Institute for Computer Science and Control (SZTAKI) of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences that seem to lack considerably WP:GNG as well. Recently, other related articles have been already deleted: [13], and [14]. Chiserc (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary David

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

Per WP:DEL#8: Doesn't meet GNG, WP:NSPORTS or WP:NMOTORSPORT. Nobody (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Motorsport. Nobody (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi. how can we edit this to meet requirements? Thanks Zach David (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable, and obvious conflict of interest doesn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As above. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As above. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Creating an account under your own name, editing just your article and quickly moving it to mainspace seems an ill-advised idea to say the least. Zach is a quick driver but clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Prose and sources aren't useful enough to draftify. MSport1005 (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
noted with thanks! Zach David (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidential visits to North Dakota

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

This appears to be the only such list of trips made by the US president to a specific state. Cannot see how it meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and North Dakota. AusLondonder (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (although it is indisputable that North Dakota is the center of the universe). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Lists of United States presidential visits and Lists of United States presidential trips show this is the only state listed. List of United States presidential visits to Puerto Rico should probably be included in this nomination. Dream Focus 01:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:36, 29 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. Technical closure as you cannot nominate article for deletion that are currently featured on the main page. Schwede 66 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election

AfDs for this article:

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

Not news, too soon, presentism, WP:NOPAGE might sum it up. Qwirkle (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first major AfD regarding this article was impossible to gain consensus from, and the second AfD was speedy kept because of this. I don't see this AfD getting pretty much anywhere. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the third AfD nomination for this article in the past week. Here's a link to the earliest one (which was listed under an older page name): [15]. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This event was notable enough to make it to Main Page. Come on guys. Calling this "not news" is absolutely ridiculous. WP:LASTING, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:COVERAGE, etc etc. Baldemoto (talk) 04:34, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa Hobbs

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Google news comes up with a different person, and google books comes up with 1 line mentions of this person. Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, History, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR pass. With Elizabeth Rankin, she has been a prominent curator/art historian in post-apartheid South Africa. For an example, one of the book reviews I've added to the article says It is not the first time that they have paired up to write the definitive book on aspects of South African art and artists - that is, the books Hobbs has written are known as the "definitive work" on the subject. I'm confident there will also be biographical information on her available in South African newspapers. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have actual sources? LibStar (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the ones I said I added to the article? That I added to the article? -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I will check out the sources you've added. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty more, as well - I stopped when I hit two reviews each on two books, since that's the usual minimum standard, but she does exceed that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. There are sources in the article from 1997 to 2012, and I am finding additional more recent sources like one of their articles in the Summer 2024 issue of "African Arts" journal (https://direct.mit.edu/afar/issue/57/2). Google Books is showing several citations of their work, and I am also finding what look like several newspaper articles from multiple different countries behind pay walls. I agree with asilvering that this meets at least the minimum standards of WP:NPROF, such as that "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I am saying "Weak keep" because I haven't had a chance to look at all of the potential sources. Elspea756 (talk) 18:50, 30 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!} 05:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Carlson (speedway rider)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only primary sources provided. Nothing found when searching ["Mark Carlson" speedway] LibStar (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTDATABASE, sources are available but all primary or database entries. No claim of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:56, 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. I find the arguments of those arguing for Delete more persuasive, along with the source tables. Those advocating Keep have to present sources to back their view that sources exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Development

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

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the minimal sources for establishing notablity are present and company is operating in two countries and is behind the biggest buildings in Turkey (Istanbul Tower 205, Istanbul aquarium) etc.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we don't agree about the availability of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS -- can you share your WP:THREE best sources for other editors to evaluate? (Notability is not WP:INHERITED from buildings this company may have been involved with.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep lean towards keep per WP NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article). The company had various names throughout its history, and it was mentioned in Turkish newspapers with no digital copies. I will try to add what I can find. 78.177.93.54 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — 78.177.93.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Mentions of the company are not sufficient, WP:NCORP mandates significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per points above. The article was created by a blocked sock, and other substantial edits were mostly done by IPs. Aintabli (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added not digital good sourcing from Turkish media. It’s quite large construction company (having built Istanbul Tower 205). It seems to meet notability criteria. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirubii Olchoglu: The ConstructionNews URL you added to the article is dead and has never been archived by Wayback Machine, and constructionnews.com does not even seem like a website publishing articles. The book (curiously written by "J. Doe") doesn't seem to exist under this title, and the ISBN belongs to an edition of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Could you clarify this situation? Janhrach (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirubii Olchoglu Even if the Construction News article was accessible to us, it wouldn't count toward notability as a WP:TRADES publication. Regardless of its size or the projects it worked on, the company needs to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS; notability isn't WP:INHERITED from projects it was involved in. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are kind of/minimum sufficient. The 100 years company is highly likely notable and has sources per NEXIST. It also should be rewritten to avoid any promo. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep !votes have asserted that minimal sources are present, but none have presented the sources they say meet the criteria. I have conducted the following source analysis and I do not see a single source that solidly passes the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS per WP:ORGCRIT. If there are more sources out there (and I didn't find any), "keep" !voters need to present them, not just assert they exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
https://biz.liga.net/all/all/press-release/turetskiy-developer-bosphorus-development-vyhodit-na-ukrainskiy-rynok-nedvijimosti	Press release	Self-published source	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://mind.ua/openmind/20234520-zakordonnij-dosvid-yak-tureckij-developer-osvoyue-ukrayinskij-rinok	Authored by the chairman of Bosphorus Development		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://archive.kyivpost.com/business-wire/new-international-development-sector-player-enters-ukraine.html	Authored by the chairman of Bosphorus Development		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://interfax.com.ua/news/interview/786357.html	As a WP:INTERVIEW, this is a primary source		The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://globaldesignnews.com/renzo-pianos-istanbul-modern-is-inspired-by-the-bosphorus-waters-its-reflections-of-sunlight-and-its-locations-heritage/			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://forbes.ua/ru/company/bosphorus-development-yak-providniy-turetskiy-developer-vikhodit-na-ukrainskiy-rinok-nerukhomosti-20122021-3011			The source only includes a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Bosphorus Development / Босфорус Девелопмент	✘ No
https://emlakkulisi.com.tr/ece-turkiye-aqua-floryanin-kiralama-faaliyetlerini-ustlendi/372671	Apparent WP:TRADES publication		The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/haberleri/aqua-florya-avm			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://expatguideturkey.com/top-10-highest-buildings-in-turkey/	~	Blog	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230726120751/http://bunews.com.ua/interviews/item/leading-turkish-developer-enters-the-expanding-ukrainian-real-estate-market	~ An interview-based article	~ Possibly excluded as a WP:TRADES publication	~ The source discusses the subject in detail but mostly about a market entry, a subject excluded as SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/gayrimenkulde-2016nin-yildizlari-40274467			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.ekoyapidergisi.org/istanbul-tower-205-e-european-property-awards-dan-2-odul	~	~	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.aksam.com.tr/yasam/istanbul-tower-205e-european-property-awardsdan-2-odul/haber-773563			The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://www.propertyturkey.com/news/istanbuls-second-tallest-building-sold-for-594-million-usd		WP:BLOG	The source does not even mention the subject.	✘ No
https://thepage.ua/real-estate/tureckaya-kompaniya-ne-razglashaet-lokaciyu-svoih-zhk-v-centre-kieva-do-nachala-stroitelnyh-rabot			News about new location openings/market entries is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV.	✘ No
https://emerging-europe.com/business/no-time-to-wait-ukraines-reconstruction-begins-now/	An interview-based article		A trivial mention as part of a broader story	✘ No
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-release/910561.html			A single trivial mention as part of a broader story	✘ No
http://stroyobzor.ua/ru/kiev/news-builders/start-prodazhu-kvartir-v-zhk-biznes-klasu-maxima-residence-na-pechersku	?	?	? Unable to access, blocked as a malicious website.	? Unknown
https://www.ukrhaber.com/blog/bir-turk-sirketi-ukrayna-emlak-piyasasina-giriyor-ilk-projesi-kievde-bir-konut-kompleksi/		Blog	News about new location openings/market entries is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if there is any editor response to the source analysis presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, the "Business Ukraine" article marked as "partial" in the source assess table relies entirely on an interview with the founder with no in-depth Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 29 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!} 05:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Song-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:50, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 11:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZipZoomfly

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

I initially WP:PRODed this with the following rationale "Non-notable, defunct retailer. None of the current sources are actual coverage of the company in reliable sources, merely being things such as database listing or user generated content like reviews. Searching for sources under both the "ZipZoomfly" and "Googlegear" names did not turn up any coverage in reliable sources." An IP user contacted me on my Talk page requesting to contest the PROD with this rationale: "ZipZoomFly.com aka GoogleGear.com was an important part of early internet history and a popular place to shop before newegg was founded. The lawsuit between them and google.com (alphabet) was a noteworthy case of parody vs trademark. The page is worth keeping because their are lessons to be learned from it's downfall." I don't agree that reasoning is sufficient to address the sourcing issues that keep this company from passing the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, but since the PROD was contested, I am moving it to AFD for discussion instead. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with IP. The suit with Google over the naming was notable at the time, and as a computer retailer, they were well and widely known during their heyday - for example, on Anandtech, they were listed in price comparisons against NewEgg, TigerDirect, and Buy.com.^[1] In the grander scheme of things, they were just an early online PC component retailer, but as a bit of early online history, they are modestly notable. I'd vote to keep it, but per notability guidelines I'm uncertain enough to say that we need more eyeballs on it to assess.

I've updated and replaced a number of of the sources, just to conform better w/policy and guidelines. Regrettably, I could find no mention of their demise from reliable sources; only many comments within PC-focused forums at the time, which of course are not considered reliable. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete. Although I sympathize with the IP's and anastrophe's desire to keep early internet history, this company isn't notable. BEFORE didn't show any RS. Of the current references:~~

1 is paywalled, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's a good reference.

2 is the Google suit, a primary document, fails RS

3, 4, 8, 9 are the company's own website, fails IS

5, 6 are user-generated reviews, fails RS

7 is simply a business listing, fails RS/SIGCOV

anastrophe's find is a listing of comparable products from different retailers

~~I see no sources that meet GNG or NORG. Even if reference #1 is acceptable, that's not enough to establish notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

All perfectly legitimate arguments, and sorry for the paywall, didn't realize at the time. The WSJ article is a good, in-depth look at the company, with the president of the company quoted several times, and their efforts to keep customers engaged in the face of growing competition detailed. Here's a 'gift' link to the article for review if interested.^[2]

But, a single article in a genuinely reliable sources isn't enough. The (lack of a) preponderance of evidence in reliable sources establishing notability is prima facie. No objection to deletion (with a wee tear in my eye, heh). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...And I'm not entirely certain of the propriety of sharing that 'gift' link here. By all means, let me know and I'll delete it if it's problematic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was really hoping to find some great sources because the early internet (in all its Comic Sans, under-construction-gif, clashing color glory) was a magical place and preserving as much history as possible is fantastic. Let the children see what we had to do to simply visit a website, and we shall not speak of the trials of downloads! If there had been enough sources I would have been an enthusiastic keep, but alas... StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Coverage here [16] and the website is talked about here [17]. These and the Wall Street Journal should be just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks Oaktree, the internet is saved! Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have struck through my earlier delete rationale as Oaktree's finds push this over the notability bar for me. Good work Oaktree! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:41, 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 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!} 05:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yu-song (footballer, born 2003)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he has played for the North Korean national team at the Asian Games, he does appear to be notable enough. 93.117.220.196 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been nominated for deletion on the basis that it fails WP:GNG. This does not relate to appearances for the national team. Simione001 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:FOOTYN, "players are deemed notable if they (...) Have played FIFA recognised senior international football". This covers playing for the national team of North Korea. 93.117.220.196 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FOOTYN itself states The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. The correct guideline is WP:SPORTCRIT, which makes no mention of playing for a national football team. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 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 redirect‎ to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ke Seung-woon

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup team. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Giant Snowman 17:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Sun-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 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 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!} 05:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Pi, Mu Chapter

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

No notability shown, no unrelated refs showing notability Naraht (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:BRANCH. Although plenty of sources are included, notability calls for independent sources and significant coverage. Sources associated with the school and the fraternity might be reliable but are not considered independent. The other coverage is not significant. Rublamb (talk) 16:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of games televised on ESPN Saturday Primetime

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

I'm not finding any sources discussing these games as a group, which are only connected by a single television package. As such, WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Basketball, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I searched and could not find any independent reliable sources offering significant coverage of this list as a group or set. Left guide (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails WP:NLIST due to no SIGCOV of articles as a group. Frank Anchor 19:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this clearly fails WP:LIST.TH1980 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and everyone, no sigcov and failed WP:NLIST Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and also doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of those above to spare me from having writing a duplicate of everybody's nominations. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:31, 29 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. Star Mississippi 17:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaine Kennedy

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Almost all the sourcing is not third party but speedway related. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the sources are related to the speedway does not make them non-independent. Per WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. These sources could be considered affiliated with him if, for example, he were their owner. I would add a few more secondary sources [18] [19] [20] Tau Corvi (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Speedway_related_sources. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw the RSN discussion first, so I do not plan to vote, but to give my opinion from my limited perspective. Having taken a look at Scunthorpe Scorpions, which looks like two different teams on one article, I can count about five dozen riders that have articles. Of the "Notable riders," most of them use "speedway related sources" in their articles with British Speedway cited between two and three dozen times. (More problematic, but farther outside of the discussion is that at least one article is citing sources that are MREL and GUNREL.)

Overall, the issue over the specific sources is going to have an effect on other articles. If deemed a problem, then there will need to be more AfD discussions in the near future; while if deemed acceptable could lead to additional article creations. I am of the opinion that redirects to the team articles could be more preferred than deletion and that some information might be includable in the various team articles. That said, I am unsure if the sources are a problem on these rider articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per suggestions by C679. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Minimal significant coverage, no real claim of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This BLP lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get an actual assessment of sources brought up in this discussion rather than general statements about the article lacking sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the 3 sources brought up are not independent as discussed in reliable sources. The article subject still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found some independent sources about this rider which deal with an under-21 world championship [21], Australian national youth championships [22] and even club championship in Australia [23]. There are more but I didn't go into much detail with the search. C 679 04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Glasgow times article seems run of the mill, speedway riders crash all the time. I wouldn't regard fullnoise.com.au [24] as an independent source. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, I am just stating that there is independent coverage of this person out there, which you cited as the main issue with the page at the outset. C 679 05:29, 30 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!} 00:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Allen Iverson

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

This is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections, which is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. The most pertinent info is already included in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlike Abdul-Jabbar, Iverson didn't set a lot of significant NBA records, certainly nothing that couldn't go in his article. (Maybe if he had practiced more ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CONTENTFORK that is largely unsourced, whose content would mostly be WP:NOTSTATS on his bio. The recent consensus has been against these standalone odes to star athletes.—Bagumba (talk) 14:18, 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!} 00:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei national baseball team

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

I was unable to find any evidence verifying notability for this team under the WP:GNG. From what I can tell, the WBSC does not even have the team ranked as seen at [[25]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Brunei. Let'srun (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no accomplishments or sources that form a basis for an article. Geschichte (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely have seen inactiveness for a period of time, in addition to the lack of achievements. Pangalau (talk) 03:27, 29 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. Star Mississippi 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbarpur Girls Inter College

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD, we are a lot stricter of notability of schools. Could not find sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked for online sources. Could only find this passing mention. If school were older, I'd wonder about print sources, but as it is I don't think we have anything. Considered redirect to Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat, but as there is so little referenced content I think Delete is the better option. Tacyarg (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looked online, google scholar, and a newspaper archive and couldn't find anything. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:05, 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.

[1] ttps://www.deccanherald.com/india/gujarat/rajkot-fire-tragedy-gujarat-govt-frames-model-rules-to-regulate-gaming-zones-amusement-rides-3134821

[2] ttps://rodakar.iom.int/fr/news/exercice-de-simulation-gogui-les-autorites-mauritaniennes-et-maliennes-se-prepare-pour-la-gestion-des-crises-risque-de-deplacement-des-personnes

[:2-3] Gere, David (1988-01-03). "Baff: Cal Performances point woman for dance". Oakland Tribune. p. 72. Retrieved 2024-07-13.

[:1-4] Gordon, Ronni (1998-04-19). "No rest for new head of Jacob's Pillow". The Republican. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-07-13.

[5] "After 17 Years of Devotion, Ella Baff Exits Jacob's Pillow". HuffPost. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2024-07-12.

[6] ttps://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/2689?cPage=4&all=False&sort=0&page=1&slug=

[7] ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118772414008204352?st=gzpd9k9fxg7z69n&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]