Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31

< July 30 August 01 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Draftification may be a legitimate alternative to deletion, when there is a consensus not to keep the page in mainspace. But in the absence of such consensus, draftification is not a valid alternative to taking no action. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

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

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 18 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) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. Actress had been in 2 Tamil language TV shows where she played lead roles but the sources on the page are focused on her personal marital life than her career. Source 1 is about her dress outfits. Source 2 is on her wedding anniversary. Source 3 is on her marriage trouble. Source 4 is on her childhood picture. Source 5 is passing mention on likes dislikes. Source 6 is on show going off-air. Source 7, 8 and 9 are on her marriage troubles. There is not a single source with indepth coverage on her career. I did not find any reliable secondary independent source that has indepth coverage on her career as an actress and the reason could be that her career is not yet worthy of notice to deserve attention or to be recorded but voting to draftify if anyone can find sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could editors arguing to Keep offer a response to this source review? How would you feel about draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and it also says and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"also says"? Please. It is written in my note. There's no need to repeat and repeat it, bold or not, as if I was trying to ignore it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes it more clear to state what is exactly said that isn't clear or contradicts from what you said. You have made your point and I agree to disagree on the sources you provided. Is there any other source you can find with indepth coverage on her career? If not, we do not need to discuss further and let closer analyze. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeated many times, there does not need to be in-depth coverage of her career. She verifiably meets a subject-specific notability guideline, WP:NACTOR, and is therefore notable. End of story. C F A 💬 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:SNG, there is no adequate sourcing and significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We dont't have to repeat each other when there is just disagreements. Lets have others weigh in. RangersRus (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be significant coverage, as long as the claim is verified. C F A 💬 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes NACTOR with roles in Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW, additional criteria clearly mentions that 'People are likely to be notable' not necessarily. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per RangersRus's source analysis. Also SALT this page to prevent it from being published before it's been reviewed. Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. It states: "Such a person may be considered notable" if it meets either of the criteria, not that the person is notable. We need sources that provide significant coverage of the subject so that we can write an encyclopedic article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. Maybe. Unless you did not understand what some of us did say or why they !voted with a reference to the applicable guideline. An actor meeting WP:NACTOR is presumed notable; not necessarily notable but certainly not proven non-notable. Sources allowing to verify the roles are necessary. You have them. And coverage about her private life was not said to be non-significant, it was said not be significantly about her career....it's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. Notability is a spectrum, and, indeed, when you have an actor with two lead roles in notable productions, NACTOR is quite clearly satisfied and their notability is very very highly likely, which this discussion allows to agree (or not) upon. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumed notable and Likely notable have very different meanings. 'Presumed' is a more stronger word for an occurance to happen, while 'likely' is a weaker word in comparison. The additional criteria mention 'Likely' and not 'Presumed'.
    It's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. - The standards of Indian media regarding the notability of a person are quite poor, which is why people/companies often don't stop at just having their name in the news but instead aim to get their own article on Wikipedia.
    I don't believe anyone who has argued above has mentioned that the subject doesn't meet NACTOR criteria, rather they are asking for significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per User:RangersRus's source analysis. I likewise concur with User:voorts's suggestion salting this mainspace until an approved draft may be completed. I find myself sympathetic to User:Jeraxmoira's assertion regarding standards of media. Entertainment and sports-based churnalism sometimes makes notability discussions of BLPs complicated. Asserting the relative importance of roles without proper citation in RS is pure synthesis. Wikipedia is not People (magazine) or the cultural equivalent elsewhere. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I agree with RangersRus's assertions. Draftify is the best thing we can do for now. If, in the future, she gets some good sources with significant coverage, it can be created via AfC. GrabUp - Talk 07:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Per RangersRus's source analysis. TarnishedPathtalk 01:31, 8 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! 05:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas Film Critics Association

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

Non-notable local organization fails WP:NORG. There's no WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are either affiliated, industry blogs (i.e. WP:TRADES) or tangentially mention the organization. Sources outside the article are principally limited to fan blogs. There's certainly no sigcov in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)" as required per WP:AUD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Najarian

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

Non-notable local official. His city council position doesn't satisfy NPOL and he doesn't seem to meet GNG otherwise. Of the 6 sources cited on the page: one is his page on a database of registered lawyers, one is the Ohio Birth Index, one is his resume, one is his campaign website, and one is his bio on the city of Glendale's official website; the only actual news article cited is a WP:ROTM article about an election he ran in. I can't really find anything better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Purely local coverage [5], [6], confirmation of election wins. Nothing beyond routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Transportation, California, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely WP:GNG. (And a little worried that there has been insufficient WP:BEFORE, possibly because there is also a Los Angeles Times sports writer with the same name, so it generates a ton of irrelevant coverage if you don't use additional search parameters.) Najarian has been vocal about advocating Armenian-American issues – Glendale has one of the largest Armenian communities outside Armenia (and this Los Angeles Times article where he is quoted is just the tip of the iceberg) – and an initial 15-minute search yielded coverage of his meetings with the prime minister of Armenia, and he is also frequently covered in the Armenian-American community press extending beyond Glendale. It will take a long time to sort through all the coverage to identify the "best 3", but this is more a case of having to spend time to search, sort, assess and improve, rather than agonizing that this four-time mayor and councilmember of Glendale has been completely ignored by the media outside of Glendale.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one: "Najarian gets presidential welcome in Armenia" which appeared in both the Los Angeles Times and the Glendale News-Press. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every local official is automatically notable. IT's absolutely worth pointing out that he's received no coverage outside of Glendale. His meeting with the president of Armenia helps, but it doesn't automatically entitle him to a Wikipedia page (even if this meeting was extremely notable, which doesn't seem to be the case, it still wouldn't make Najarian himself notable, per WP:1E). Him being "mentioned" in an LA Times article is also not especially convincing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly WP:1E if his official visits to Armenia were covered in both 2010 and 2018. Anyway in future I would recommend trying search engines other than Google. A quick Google search will tell you it doesn't function very well anymore as a search engine. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can find articles that are more in-depth than mentions by searching site:latimes.com "ara najarian" on Google, such as Ara Najarian tapped as Glendale mayor for the fourth time. toweli (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toweli: I wouldn't call that "in-depth" coverage, it's a pretty short article about him becoming mayor. Seems pretty run of the mill to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was in-depth, I said that it was more in-depth than mentions. I'm not sure whether he's notable or not, because I haven't really looked much. That's why I didn't write "keep". toweli (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and different interpretations of the sources available. I'll try one more relisting to see if we can get additional participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 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 Draftify‎. The argument revolving the nominator's rationale was based on a lack of significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. However, it was open to considering any alternative deletion outcomes. Although one user still supports deletion for the same reason, the community consensus clearly favors draftification to allow for improvements. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Baril

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

After extensive searching for WP:SIGCOV in multiple newspaper archives, I believe the subject lacks the coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. This obit [[7]] is rather short and doesn't make mention of his NFL career. Besides the obit, there are some passing/routine mentions like [[8]], [[9]], [[10]] and [[11]] but from what I see it is all trivial. While the subject played 16 NFL games, they took place in the early years of the league when the popularity of the league was nowhere near what it is today. I don't see a clear WP:ATD here but am open to the possibility. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The early years of NFL were so different from NFL in the 1960s–on as to be totally different enterprises. It's not surprising that no SIGCOV exists and that his participation wasn't even noteworthy enough to include in his obit. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 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! 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drunvalo Melchizedek

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

It's regrettable that this page has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It relies exclusively on primary sources and blog posts. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There are no serious reviews of his self published books. Consensus was deletion after a previous nomination in 2012. Not much has changed. He might be well known in New Age pseudoscience circles but there is nothing of substance for a Wikipedia page. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The AFD is inaccurate as this is not the same page from 2012. It was recreated from scratch with available info in 2019. Also, the AFD does not actually give any specific grounds for deletion except what sounds like personal disdain, which WP needs to be above. In fact, the deletion submission itself admits topical notability. Whether said topical area is bad or good is not relevant to encyclopedic inclusion. - Keith D. Tyler 12:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first inclination would be WP:AUTHOR, in that, at least in his field (however dubious), he is considered a significant figure. This is rather bolstered, I would say, by the number of the independent secondary sources already cited. Additionally, that his work has been the inspiration for notable artists as diverse as Tool and Willow Smith lends some amount of significant influence. But again, even your nomination concedes that "he might be well known in New Age... circles" which would seem to render the question moot; even you're not entirely certain of his non-notability, which I still think shoots significant holes through any WP:NN argument.
    As for WP:RS, I would point to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources:
    Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well.
    Keith D. Tyler 05:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out the guideline concerning parity of sources. Please provide 3 of the independent secondary sources cited that you think best establish notability and we can discuss it from there.Ynsfial (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS - I don’t see a single reliable source, unless you consider Jezebel to be reliable. This is in no was close to passing notability. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novotel Nha Trang

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in google news and unreferenced for over 13 years. Despite in the last AfD saying lots of sources would exist, I found none. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Smolarczyk

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this footballer. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I admit I do not have more sources that would qualify for sig. cov. either. I have saved the article source for later use, but feel free to go ahead with the deletion. Lisbean (talk) 09:44, 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! 05:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ciberbit

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

Written like an advertisement and fails WP:NCORP with a lack of any significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Literally no coverage other than their website found. Working with Microsoft in this case means publishing games on their platform, which isn't notable. They make software, but don't describe what it is or why it's notable, further hindering our efforts to prove notability. I can't find anything about this commercial enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sign of notability anywhere. I'm not even sure if it still exists. Looks like a relic from the past when notability standards were much less strict. C F A 💬 01:56, 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! 23:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor's degree or higher

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this term is just a term and not a topic worthy of having its own article. This should be deleted or merged or redirected or moved to Wiktionary. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:12, 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 keep‎. Consensus is to Keep but article is still unsourced. Can editors move some of the sources brought up here into the article? Otherwise we might be back for AFD #2. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aktas

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Sources in other language WPs aren't reliable. Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diadibeny Gandega

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

This is long-term unreferenced, so I tried to find sources to add. I couldn't find sources online to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG. References in other WP languages are mirror sites, or it came up that the sites were privacy concerns. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 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 merge‎ to Albion College. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prentiss M. Brown Honors Center & Astronomical Observatory

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable building at a small liberal arts college. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjith Israel

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

It is only a beginner who is a volunteer, only one or two sources and only a small mention is included in the reference. Does not prove other notability. WP:ANYBIO,WP:GNG are failed. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 20:45, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Jawad

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

Doesnt meet GNG, probable vanity page, all but one source are either IMDB (non-RS) and her Youtube Nswix (talk) 20:25, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heard Natural Science Museum and Wildlife Sanctuary

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. A small nature preserve and museum in Texas without national or state-wide coverage. The refs are all either self-published (company website), or routine local coverage in the D/FW area. Looking at the edit history, it was mostly written by Sanctuary.p, which appears to be an account affiliated with the museum, based on its name and only having contributed to this article. Article appears to be promotional in tone. HertzDonuts (talk) 18:39, 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 merge‎ to Superhero fiction - now that the article has been reduced to a three-paragraph stub. Sandstein 09:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against superheroes

[edit]
All prior XfDs for this page:


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

Article looks to be a relic in many regards of a time when articles saw far less scrutiny on their suitability for inclusion. Quite frankly it is clearly more of a fan essay, filled with significant amounts of original research. Despite coming to over 7000 words there are a mere 30 citations evident, of which there only appears to be a single source from a reliable, third-party source and the rest fanblogs or simply the primary source (i.e. the comic itself).

The article in question has been marked for improvement for nearly a decade now and it has failed to be done, instead only slowly growing and growing as more fan-essay content is occasionally added. This to me suggests there is little room to be improved to meet Wikipedia core policies on original research, verfiability, and neutral point of view.

Given the complete failure to meet any of wikipedia's policies I move to delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve, possibly rename to something more clearly fiction-oriented. Discrimination against "differently abled" individuals whose difference happens to be a superpower is a very well-established and well-examined literary device. BD2412 T 21:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 the problem is that the article quite clearly isn't one aimed of being an encyclopaedic detailing of superheroism as a literary device to examine attitudes towards marginalised groups, and how that's been examined critically and/or academically. Instead it's effectively just an extremely verbose list of "every form of fictional legislation around superheroes in every publication users can identify, regardless of what that legislation does or doesn't represent".
    I think a great example of how completely unsuitable it is can be seen in how it documents both the Mutant Control Act (which was used to examine issues such as authoritarianism) and a fictional court case in The Incredibles seeing superheroes being liable for the damage they cause as both being examples of "discrimination against superheroes". Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the redirect target of a number of enumnerated fictional elements like the Keene Act--check 'What links here'. Just that one fictional act is covered (1, 2, 3 from the first 5 results) by multiple sources indexed by Google Scholar. The nomination's other arguments are non-policy based; the nominator should have spent more time with BEFORE rather than arguing against the possibility of improvement without any understanding of the article or its source material. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find you're the one making non-policy based arguments. I have literally argued how it fails to meet any of the three core Wikipedia policies, all you've done is link three paywalled journals asserting they justify the article because they may contain references to Watchmen without actually demonstrating from those sources how they'd merit inclusion or the retention of the entire article as opposed to a few lines about one comic series that would therefore merit inclusion simply on that series' existing article.
    You could also consider working on your obvious patronising attitude at the same time... Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I should apologize: I'm sorry that your failure to BEFORE irritates me to the point I begin to confuse poor nomination with intent to damage Wikipedia. I should AGF more and focus on educating you, even though you've been around long enough that I think you should know better.
    So, let's start at the beginning: Does this article suck? Sure. Should it be deleted? Well, let's first look at the bad arguments you advanced: Age of article, age of improvement templates, length/citation ratio, and confusing lack of improvement with lack of potential for improvement. None of those is a reason for deletion; all are instead reasons for improvement, all can be fixed with regular editing. "But wait!" I imagine you retorting, "What about DEL#REASON number eight?" Therein lies the only policy-based argument you've advanced, that it doesn't have any RS coverage. So, lesson summary "It sucks!" is not a reason for deletion; "It can't possibly ever not suck!" is. (Oh, and "It's named wrong" that you advanced in a reply is also a good reason to change the name, not delete the article).
    This brings us to WP:BEFORE. Did you do one? If you did, you didn't describe it. I did one search on one of the various instantiations of this concept, on Google Scholar only, and found three resources. Per WP:PAYWALL the fact that you can't read them says nothing about their suitability. Now, they may not in fact be suitable--what you got from me was a fraction of the effort you should have expended, shoehorned into my lunch break, hence the relative brevity of my post.
    So how to do better in the future? Two things: Do BEFORE, and look at 'what links here' to see if, instead of a slowly growing essay, this is a target for the merger of other 'meh' articles in the past. For example, the Keene Act which still remains a redirect to a stubbified article that does not now mention it, and which the three references I documented mention or discuss. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just really tripling down on the "you are stupid and beneath me" huh?
    Well have a nice day and I hope you work on the god-complex you have. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the personal insult, although an apology from you would be appropriate, if you were stupid and beneath me I would respond differently. Rather, as part of the "bad content should be deleted, not left around for eventual improvement that may never happen" crowd, you're perfectly intelligent and sincere, but misguided. I'll note that you didn't address any of the policy education I delivered to you. Why is that? If you think I'm wrong, by all means show me how I am wrong. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever considered that rather than spending the last few years hanging around in the "drama" side of Wikipedia and assumedly being just as much of a patronising 'educator of the misguided' towards everyone as you are here, you could actually have undertaken any of the improvement activity you supposedly hold in high regard? Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Educating well-meaning but wrong editors is a far better effort multiplier than fixing things myself. As I've said elsewhere, I have a finite amount of time and should be spending more of the rest of it helping suffering human beings, so no, I don't really have time to do more than watch DRV and DELSORT and argue against misguided deletion efforts. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Be very well-assured, I am clapping what an amazing human being of such selflessness you are right now as you felt the need to humblebrag multiple times about your day job... Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, since there's no evidence you even read the article's talk page before nominating, why should I assume you're going to read what I say in response to others in this discussion? And I mean... you've replied snarkily multiple times without reference to the substance of my arguments. Are you ready to move on and actually talk about policy? Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Anything I base in policy is clearly just going to see further baseless allegations that I didn't actually read the policy or well I mustn't have read it properly because it doesn't match the thoughts of the person apparently too busy saving people to add anything to mainspace but all the hours in the world to be patronising on AFDs... Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseless accusations? Are you saying that you did read the appropriate policies but chose to ignore them? Me saying you obviously didn't read carefully enough is AGFing: we all miss or gloss over things from time to time, no harm no foul, acknowledge and move on. But if you did read policies, were aware of the points I raised, and disregarded them... that's a conduct issue on you. It's kinda hard to tell what you're actually saying, because again, you're not responding to policy points I have made, so "baseless" is kinda out of left field here. And today is my day off, thanks for asking, and yes, I should be closing charts instead of bantering here. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading policies and then coming to a different conclusion that wasn't your view on them isn't "ignoring them". As someone supposedly in the medical field I would have thought you'd be well-aware of what the concept of a second opinion is... Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you, or did you not check the talk page for previous discussions?
    Did you, or did you not check 'What links here'?
    Did you, or did you not perform basic searches for applicable sources?
    Those are black and white expectations, which you either did or did not do. I didn't make them up; they're in WP:BEFORE. To be sure we could differ in our interpretations of whether these were done adequately or not, and that could be a genuine difference of opinion. But that's not what's happened here: I don't see where you've asserted you performed any of these three expected steps before nomination. So... again I ask explicitly: did you? Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Come on now, you're better than this. You know that the article being a fan essay is indeed a policy-based WP:Reason for deletion, specifically WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTESSAY). You should indeed WP:Assume good faith more, starting by not accusing people of failure to do a proper WP:BEFORE and acting without any understanding of the article or its source material—if one actually does what WP:BEFORE suggests and conducts a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search (and for that matter a Google Scholar search, which is suggested for academic subjects) for "Discrimination against superheroes", one does not exactly drown in relevant results. The idea that the fact that your search for "Keene Act" turned up a few results—that you admit to not even knowing if they are suitable—somehow demonstrates that the nominator did not do a proper WP:BEFORE search is seriously flawed. Firstly, as you correctly note, that's not the topic of this article but one of the various instantiations of this concept. I hope that I don't need to explain the very basic concept that WP:Notability is not inherited to you, but for the benefit of others that may read this: an example of something (a topic/concept/idea/whatever) being notable has no bearing on the broader topic being notable, and conversely an overarching topic being notable has no bearing on any examples being notable—those are orthogonal questions. I also hope that I don't need to explain to you that we don't construct article scopes based on editors' reckoning that A, B, and C are all instances of broader topic X (as that would be WP:SYNTH), we leave it to the sources. Secondly, WP:BEFORE explicitly says that if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you truly wanted to assume good faith, you could have used the working assumption that the nominator did a more thorough WP:BEFORE search than you did and came to the conclusion that the sources were insufficient. I would also note that presenting sources from a supposed WP:BEFORE search without checking that they are pertinent is the kind of thing that people have been banned from deletion discussions for (persistently) doing. Why do you take it upon yourself to lecture people about WP:BEFORE searches if you are not even going to do them properly yourself when doing so? Why should anyone take you seriously when you talk about notability-demonstrating sources existing if you are not even going to check that the sources you bring up actually demonstrate notability? I know based on your track record that you are capable of contributing constructively to Wikipedia—why do you choose to do stuff like this instead? TompaDompa (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article wasn't an essay--not every article that's a mess of examples without a better narrative is--and even if it was, it was correctable by editing.
    • I respond briefly by doing some of the work the nominator should have done. That doesn't make me obligated to do the rest. Thus, I never said the sources weren't suitable, I said I didn't have time to deep-dive them during my lunch hour. (ETA: Oh, and I did, below, provide one print RS source with a detailed quote further demonstrating notability.)
    • To continue, I am absolutely not leaving patients waiting while doing Wikipedia, so what you get out of me since 2012 is my best efforts consistent with the other obligations I have in life.
    • If BEFORE doesn't include looking at talk pages and understanding what's been going on with the article or looking at 'What links here' to see where mergers and redirections affect a page, it absolutely should.Oh, wait, those are WP:BEFORE checks steps four (Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.) and six (Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.) respectively. Again, we're here because of a failure on the part of the nominator to do due diligence as expected by the process guideline documentation. So yeah... understanding the process could have saved everyone a lot of time here. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether or not the assertion that the article was an essay was correct, the argument that this means that it should be deleted is a policy-based one—contrary to your statement that The nomination's other arguments are non-policy based. I know you never said the sources weren't suitable, hence why I specified that you admit to not even knowing if they are suitable. And even if you don't have time to contribute in the ways you used to any more, I would suggest that these kinds of quasi-WP:BEFORE searches for sources that muddy the waters might not be the most constructive way of using your limited time here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Those are fair points, especially the last. I had literally 5-10 minutes to address a problem I believed that, if deleted rather than improved would seriously impair comic coverage. I'm not a comics expert myself, only saw the issue because of DELSORT fictional elements, and believed it best to say something given that it's hard to get people to re-review a 'delete' !vote if one adds sources later in the discussion. In the past, when I've said "Hang on, this isn't right, I'll dig up some sources tomorrow" I've gotten "Oh, look, a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument instead of any real sourcing"-type responses, which has modified my response to be more along these lines. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not policy based? It doesn't meet notability standards, that's the bare minimum we apply around here. This "essay" contains no critical discussion of this concept, nor is it sourced to anything reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do understand WP:NEXIST, right? You can say the article in its current state doesn't demonstrate notability, but you cannot truthfully say the concept is non-notable, because, well, it is, and the nom should have done enough research to understand that per BEFORE.Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This in-world essay only describes Marvel characters; rather long and rambling, not suitable for a general encyclopedia. The sourcing confirms nothing notable and most aren't even RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been stubbified; your critiques no longer apply to the article as edited (presumably) after your statement. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like a splendid topic to have an article on, provided that there are sources discussing the overarching topic. Where are those sources? I have spent some time cleaning up the article now by removing unsourced material, improper reliance on primary sources, in-universe plot details and real-world speculation about upcoming such, and so on. Not much remains, and there turned out to not be any sources on the overarching topic cited. We can of course not simply take a bunch of examples from works of fiction that we as editors have noticed and decide that they collectively form a particular overarching topic with a scope that we define—this is not TV Tropes, and here on Wikipedia that would be WP:Improper editorial synthesis. We don't do media analysis ourselves here, we leave that to the sources. It's also difficult to emphasize enough just what an absolute mess of WP:Writing about fiction violations the article was in when it was nominated. The amount of WP:INUNIVERSE perspective was nothing short of astounding. TompaDompa (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify While it could be a workable topic, it's just too threadbare to make sense as a standalone article and in its current state, almost certainly needs to be merged. We'll see if it can be accepted from the draft namespace once it's properly expanded to article length. I would also support a name change to Discrimination in superhero fiction to make it sound less blatantly in-universe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, Stubbify as TompaDompa did, or draftify, but certainly not both. Again, note how many different incoming redirects there are to this page. If it were a choice between the two, stubbifying is certainly less disruptive to superhero coverage. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, both makes sense. If it was in the state it was before TompaDompa took an axe to it, I'd have certainly said delete as an unencyclopedic page. Though it may have been better to have deleted it and have TompaDompa start over with a new article, since the scope changed so drastically from a single plot point to an overall examination of discrimination. Either way, it is not a necessary part of superhero coverage as it can easily be explained in superhero fiction#common plot elements and there is plenty of space to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum, for consensus purposes I also support a merge to Superhero fiction until it can become developed enough for a split, if ever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've asked Wikiproject Comics to come and improve the article during this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge to Superhero#Minority superheroes (that section might have to be renamed to something like Superhero#Social concerns though). I can see this as a notable and encyclopedic topic, but the article is currently not long enough to need a stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sgeureka that seems to be a completely different issue in that section though, being about diverse representation via superheroes (i.e. LGBT+ superheroes or superheroes with disabilities). This article however is supposedly to be about superheroes being discriminated against because they have superpowers, which both prior to substantial edits by TompaDompa overnight and since isn't supported with reliable sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Superhero fiction. I would love to have it as a separate article, but I can't find the necessary sources to keep it on its own. It would make sense to merge the content into the Superhero fiction article. There could be a section that can be created like "Common themes".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blue Pumpkin Pie what search terms have you been using? I'd suggest using the incoming redirects as search terms. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More sources include Social Order and Authority in Disney and Pixar Films Deys & Parrillo, eds., 2021 ISBN 9781793622112, p. 164:

    The Incredibles reframes the exploration of the proper repositories of power and responsibility that occurs in other superhero franchises. In The Avengers (Whedon 2012 ) universe, the political fallout from civilian casualties in Lagos prompts the Sokovia Accords, which brings superheroes under the auspices and discipline of a panel of the United Nations. The Keene Act (1977) prohibits vigilantism in Watchmen (Snyder et. al. 2009 ). There are significant parallels in the X-Men franchise, where prohibition of mutants drives the primary narrative. The television series The Boys (Kripke 2019 ) features superpowered individuals selected to be part of The Seven who do not work for the government but for a private corporation, Vought International.

    Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with the topic of the article under discussion—discrimination against superheroes? Or perhaps more to the point: what is your conception of what the topic of the article actually is? TompaDompa (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Go look at the article talk page; you'll see it's been renamed at least twice, being previously known as Registration acts (Comics) and Registration Acts (Comics) before landing at this title. You yourself edited out a ton of content about those topics--mutant regitration, Sokovia Accords, Keene act, etc. Neither you nor the nominator appear to understand that the topic this article is fictional legal discrimination against superpowered individuals. Zxcvbnm, participating here, initiated the second move that seems to have obfuscated the topic for you. To reiterate, the concept of legal discrimination against superheroes is absolutely notable, being discussed by multiple RS'es under the various instantiations of this concept in at least four separate fictional franchises (Incredibles, Watchmen, Marvel/X-Men comics, MCU). Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was last moved because the scope was, at least at the time and at least by those involved in the discussion, not understood to be superhero registration acts, specifically. The nominator described it as discrimination by the public against superheroes, which is also not the same thing as legal discrimination. TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added the following to the article, which was removed in what appears to be an absence of good faith comprehension of the source provided:
A number of fictional superhero universes contain stories about discrimination against superheroes in the form of Registration Acts, fictional legislative bills which, when passed into law, enforce the regulation of extra-legal vigilante activity vs. criminal activity, or the mandatory registration of superpowered individuals with the government.[1] For example, in the alternate universe of the Watchmen, first published in 1986, a backlash against superheroes leads to the passage of the "Keene Act", a federal law that prohibits "costumed adventuring" except by superheroes working for the government.[1] A similar device was used in the Marvel Comics universe in the mid-2000s, where a "Superhero Registration Act" is passed, that requires superpowered individuals to not only register with the government, but to make themselves available to be drafted to respond to emergencies.[1]
I have restored the content, but since it exists whether it is in the article or not, it weighs into the question of whether this concept is well-supported enough to have an article, whether it is improperly removed from the article or not.
In addition, I note that Google Scholar returns dozens of articles on "Superhero registration" and discrimination. BD2412 T 21:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I looked at the source. I found where it talked about discrimination. I found where it talked about registration. I did not find any place where it designated registration a form of discrimination. I explained this in the edit summary. As I said to you, discrimination and backlash are not the same thing, [...] discrimination and regulation are not the same thing, and [...] discrimination and registration are not the same thing. If you're adding content to the article discrimination against superheroes, the content has to be about discrimination against superheroes. If you want to add content about backlash against superheroes, regulation of superhero activity, or superhero registration, you either need to find sources that say that these are forms of discrimination against superheroes or find some other article where the content is a better fit. TompaDompa (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(My response to you above also addresses this misunderstanding of the topic's focus vs. the article title.) Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the government passed a law requiring all gay people (and only gay people) to register with the government, you don't think that is discrimination without a source specifying that it is discrimination? In any case, the source provided, in your own words, "talked about discrimination" - against superheroes. If you think there is better content on this subject in the source, add that to the article. Removing the source from the article is dishonest. BD2412 T 21:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of what we write in WP:WikiVoice, specifically, it doesn't matter what I, or you, or any other editor thinks counts as discrimination (or indeed, does not); what matters is what the sources say. TompaDompa (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can acknowledge that the last renaming of the article appears to have seriously obfuscated the topic leading to many participants here talking past each other. Can we solve this entire problem by reverting the last move request? Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a bad idea to me. The given reason for the last move was the old title not reflecting the scope—the idea was for the scope to be broader than registration. Legal perspectives on superheroes, Legal issues surrounding superheroes, or something like that would probably be a better idea. Or we could find sources that explicitly label superhero registration as a form of discrimination. Making the article specifically about superhero registration would necessitate making other aspects out of scope. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of any sort of reframing or renaming that brings the topic back to what the RS'es actually say about superhero registration acts, where I contend there are sufficient RS'es to write a good article, rather than about discrimination against superheroes in general, where I haven't done any research whatsoever. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the intended scope, I would suggest superhero registration acts, superhero registration, or registration of superheroes as better titles than the old one. TompaDompa (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The broader the scope, the more content we will find that supports it. How about Legal regulation of superheroes in fiction? BD2412 T 23:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possible variation on my suggested titles above. It would exclude the question about whether superheroes would be protected by laws against discrimination (which is something The Law of Superheroes discusses at some length), however. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 @TompaDompa how about a more list-oriented article around the title "Legal regulation of superheroes in fiction" and then as part of the introduction detail how legal regulation has at times been used for social commentary, with suitable use of sources to demonstrate critical analysis that has been done on some prominent examples?
Avoids the essay-like problems it had where there's little coherence and RS for "discrimination against superheroes", widens the potential scope that @BD2412 has asked for in finding wider RS to support a standalone article, and for @TompaDompa still keeps aspects of deeper critical analysis. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of other aspects, I think a list format should be avoided. Those tend to attract the addition of content that turns articles like this into horrible messes that need to be cleaned up down the line. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, I agree with. I have no problem with a carefully curated and sourced list within a larger piece, but the foundation has to be a solid textual description of the matter. BD2412 T 23:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just for clarity do you mean you agree with what I proposed or Tompa's reply about lists? Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler: I mean that I agree with TompaDompa's reply. This should not primarily be a list. BD2412 T 16:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the government passed a law requiring all gay people (and only gay people) to register with the government, you don't think that is discrimination without a source specifying that it is discrimination?
@BD2412 I think the problem with the added passage as a list of examples is that lack of further third-party analysis as it does appear to be multiple forms of "registration" in multiple different contexts being lumped together. There's the sort that you're using an allegory for but then there are also "Registration Acts" more akin to being a professional in many contexts i.e. you have to be formally registered to practice superheroism.
This was one of the problems of the article before being reduced to a stub, it was an amalgamation of too many contexts that without presenting viewpoints from third party critical analysis looked like they were being suggested as similar acts of "discrimination". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The act discussed in the context of the Marvel Universe specifically required registration irrespective of whether the person was practicing superheroism. The source provided analyzed it as the equivalent of a draft. BD2412 T 22:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that wouldn't necessarily meet the connotation for discrimination as the concept is generally understood to mean on its own. This is why we need good-quality sources demonstrating critical analysis of these items from the viewpoint as commentary for discrimination, being careful not to write in WikiVoice in the process, as otherwise it ends up being the problem article of before where it was all over the place assigning the definition of discrimination to every Registration Act mentioned. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous names were too specific to be able to verify notability, making the name change for a broader subject the better alternative, but the current name change is too subjective. Some people may consider things discrimination. Maybe an X-Men story will interpret it as "discrimination", but not in Civil War, and a grey area in the Incredibles. If I had chosen to name it myself I would have renamed it to "Portrayal of Government in Superhero fiction" which would be a more neutral term.
I still think the best alternative is to merge with Superhero fiction. I looked into it and I have yet to see sources focus on any government portrayal or government acts in comics as a general topic.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing, whatever approach is eventually settled upon, is that we follow the sources. The reason the state this article used to be in was such an unmitigated mess is that editors had not followed the sources but instead added content based on their own intuition about what belonged. TompaDompa (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I agree. if the original name/scope was retained, it would've been flagged for deletion earlier. But so far, I haven't seen any evidence that the topic (both original and new) are notable. Just a lot of synthesis to say the theme reoccurs.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see that the paragraph from Social Order and Authority in Disney and Pixar Films which I quoted above demonstrates that these various registration acts are considered and discussed as a whole, I'm not sure what it would take to convince you. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is about superhero accountability (or as the source puts it, "the proper repositories of power and responsibility"), not registration acts as such. It continues Damage to citizens arising from the actions of The Seven is managed by media manipulation and settlements brokered by lawyers. Many of those with special abilities are portrayed as immoral and vicious. TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and you don't think that final sentence bears on this topic? Hate and fear of mutants, supers, whatever, leading to legal discrimination, registration, relocation, whatever, are an ongoing metaphor for how humans treat people who are different. Whether the supers are coded as Jews, sexual minorities, or some other minority, the trope of hating those who want to help because they are different plays out in so many different comic book forms. It's a non-trivial focus of social commentary in comics. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion thus far amply demonstrates the necessity of scope delineation coming from the sources, not editors. There are several different possible topics here that are related, broadly overlap, and/or have fuzzy borders. We must not synthesize a topic but let the sources define it for us. To that end, and to avoid equivocation, the question must be: what do the sources say the topic is here? TompaDompa (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're agreed that there needs to be some sort of an article on these topics, and a thorough cataloguing of the sources should guide us. Now... has anyone but me brought any into this discussion? Would it not be better if this BEFORE-lacking AfD was ended so we can better hash this out on the talk page? Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's self-evident that a stand-alone article is the right way to go, nor that the starting point should be the present article considering that the eventual scope might turn out to be very different indeed. I categorically disagree with the idea that there needs to be anything. I don't understand why you think ending the AfD discussion would be preferable—discussion here certainly has greater visibility, and there is no guarantee that talk page discussion would be more fruitful (in my experience, it often isn't). Kicking this can down the road because of a presumption that a proper scope can in theory be created seems like a recipe for ending up back here in a few years with no progress done whatsoever—even if there is genuine concerted effort to come up with a well-defined scope based on the sources, consensus may not be reached. For that matter, I don't think the outcome of this discussion is a foregone conclusion—there are reasonable arguments that what content can be properly sourced would be a better fit for some other article, i.e. merged (and the suggestion to draftify is not without merit either). Come to think of it, I think a split discussion down the line on the talk page of a more high-profile article (assuming that such content is merged there and then—eventually—substantially expanded) would be more likely to be productive. Superhero fiction has been suggested as a possible merge target. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is still arguing for outright deletion, are they? Nor should they based on the sourcing already here and an understanding of the history of this article. In fact because of that history and the incoming links Draftification would be a terrible idea: leaving it right here in mainspace--either as it was or as you have modified it--or merging it are the only ways to not break dozens of incoming links. This is why checking 'What links here' is a part of BEFORE: not only does it inform the outcome as I just noted, but it also explains the search terms that Wikipedia expects this article to address. Given the scope and identified-but-not-previously included sources, including from the previous AfD, this absolutely should have been initially addressed in a discussion format. But we're here, and some poor closer has to wade through all this. I'd prefer they not have to read additional discussion here once the overall outcome is understood, and so we can indeed move into more nuanced sourcing discussions that aren't of interest to the closer or the majority of participants here. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incoming links are already broken inasmuch as the article contents have changed. This was necessary as the way the article was constructed was fundamentally flawed. The contents of the article determine how it should be linked, not the other way around. You keep bringing up the history of the article, but the history of this article is the history of improper article construction by editors eyeballing a topic rather than relying on the sources.
I am no stranger to this situation. See WP:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction, where there was likewise a situation of an article having been constructed across many years based on editors eyeballing a topic rather than relying on the sources. The only reason that discussion did not result in deletion was that someone ('twas me) actually took the time to review the sources on the overarching topic and was able to rewrite the article from scratch (compare the version when the AfD was opened versus when the AfD was closed) as a proper article. Or rather had taken the time—when I first decided to fix the article by doing so a couple of years prior, it was reverted because some editors were apparently attached to the version that needed fixing. It was only when the article was brought to AfD that fixing the massive issues came to be generally viewed as the preferable course of action. This discussion about among other things scope delineation happened at the AfD (and then continued on the talk page), which was a good use of the community's time and a fruitful discussion.
Moreover, in that case over a hundred redirects had to be brought to WP:RfD afterwards (and many additional ones were altered as no longer appropriate). Again, the contents of the article determine how it should be linked, not the other way around—it doesn't matter what Wikipedia expects this article to address, what matters is what the sources address.
You say "given the scope", but there isn't even a common understanding of what the scope of the article under discussion is or should be. This is, to put it mildly, a major problem. If we can figure out what the scope should be based on the sources, then great—we can use that to inform our decision about what should be done with the article. But when the scope itself is neither clear nor based on the sources, but rather open to (rather widely diverging) interpretation and the product of (the higher-order equivalent of) WP:Original research, what are we to do? Solving the scope question is crucial. TompaDompa (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to answer your question: no, I don't think the story portraying individuals with superpowers as flawed (or outright bad) people is relevant to the topic of in-universe discrimination against superheroes, and I think the suggestion that it would be is nonsensical. TompaDompa (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This will be a very complicated AFD to close because so much of the content here is about the subject, not what should happen with the article. Could discussion of this article content be moved to the article talk page unless it concerns the outcome of this discussion? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I obviously have my own view as to the outcome but I'd argue the throughline seems to be understanding that the article under its present title and subject isn't fit for purpose. If it aids closure I'd be accepting of Draftify as well as previously stated Deletion as that would provide the ability for a new article on a more rigorously defined subject-matter to be created by those interested while still dealing with the issue of a failure to demonstrate notability for "discrimination against superheroes". Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just had to highlight that this was the article that was nominated and that editors might have offered opinions on. The current version bares no resemblance to this version of the article at all. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, regardless of the old or new version of the article in case that wasn't clear @Liz:. From what I can see, both fail to meet GNG.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Superhero fiction, per Blue Pumpkin Pie. Once you remove the unsourced material, there still isn't enough WP:SIGCOV. This also feels like a WP:NOPAGE situation, where a Themes section in superhero fiction could cover this in a more encyclopedic way, instead of WP:SYNTH of a few sources down a narrow set of observations. The whole superhero genre is thematically about power (with great power comes great responsibility, how much power is too much power, does power alienate you from society), but we need to avoid treating that as a graduate school essay. It belongs in the section of broader article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which version of the article are you referring to? The current version had much of the original content deleted from the nominated version, and no one has made any effort to integrate or evaluate the >20 potential sources referenced in this discussion and the previous AfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Daily, James; Davidson, Ryan (2012). The Law of Superheroes. Avery. ASIN B007T99LK0.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anukul Munshi

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

Another non-notable "Mother of Pearl" artist, part of a walled garden of articles on the Munshi/Munsi family. Likely a UPE or COI creation. A BEFORE search returns nothing on this person, and I was unable to verify any of the claims nor the awards. Relies on one author's unverifiable writings on the Munsi/Munshi family that is used in all of these articles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baronial Order of Magna Charta

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Presently, the only references in the article are non-independent. toweli (talk) 17:03, 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 rename and refocus‎. Consensus to rename to Alastor trilogy and to focus the topic more on the book series. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alastor Cluster

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, without enough significant coverage. WP:BEFORE is hard because "Alastor" is the name of the books, which already have articles, but not enough to separate the location as its own subject. I would accept a redirect to Gaean Reach, which is questionably notable but at least increases the probability of expansion and improvement. Jontesta (talk) 16:30, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Knob, Indiana

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

The reference given doesn't pan out per se but elsewhere in the same work it lists the place as a "postal village", which is to say, just a post office. There is nothing significant at the spot. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 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 merge‎ to List of Saint Seiya characters. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Seiya antagonists

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

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of Saint Seiya characters that is unsourced. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to make WP:INDISCRIMINATE repeated articles about the same topic unless there is evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brocade River Poems 10:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Blue Beetle#Enemies. Since this section of the target article is a redirect to this article, it shouldn't be a difficult Merge. Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue Beetle enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of appearances, because there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:12, 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. Complex/Rational 15:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realtors Association of Edmonton

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable organization. I've only been able to find trivial mentions in unrelated articles and this article in Real Estate Magazine that arguably isn't significant coverage anyways. C F A 💬 15:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in terms of historical significance to the region and membership size. Mazshan (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you failed to check for previous organization names, and the organization is very easy to find cited in independent articles, see below. Please do your due diligence properly.
Edmonton Journal article mentioning organization
CBC article mentioning organization
CTV article mentioning organization
DailyHive mention under a past name
MoneySense article mentioning organization Mazshan (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very well aware that there have been trivial mentions of this organization in reliable sources. Those do not count towards notability, though. Organizations must have received significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned above, the only possible "significant coverage" is in a non-independent publication. C F A 💬 16:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not what a due diligence check needs, we need extensive articles about this subject, not name drops. I would not even mention these in my search results, these are not helpful to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 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 redirect‎ to Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage!#Characters. RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! characters

[edit]
List of Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Gamecruft, un-encyclopedic excessively detailed. (Although the move from the game article to a separate page was justified) IgelRM (talk) 14:57, 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 redirect‎ to Ultravox. Treating this as a non-controversial redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Lily (band)

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

Notability is not inherited. The band is already mentioned on the John Foxx page. Sourcing is largely from primary sources. Karst (talk) 14:54, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hulburd

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as a unelected candidate for congress, who did not receive the requisite WP:SIGCOV outside of his failed campaign. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:30, 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 no consensus‎. The discussion raised important questions about sourcing that should continue to be discussed, but after two relists there was no consensus to delete the page or for any alternative. RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De'Anyers family

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurrate statement, the sources listed are entirley comprehensive, I ask which ones precisely are 'tangential'.
Notability is sufficent as seen in the extensive sources primary and secondary. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to discuss which sources in particular do not provide significant coverage and see where we go from there, I am aware that there are yes a significant number of sources used which may convey this, however are consolidated by a number of reliable and imparital sources used in this article as well as other articles of a similar nature which cover landed families. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
proposing Keep, I have had a look through the source list comprehensivley and would very much like to discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus.at some point ? several main sources used for the article are all impartial and well known genealogical publications - Burkes, Ormerods, ect. The Battle Abbey Role by the Duchess of Cleveland published I believe in the 1890s covering the families on the scroll, also a book on a biography of the family. Other verified wikipedia pages exist for 3 members of the family listed on the page as well as others not mentioned (artists William Daniell and Thomas Daniell, and Thomas Daniel)
The issue is perhaps the interchangable use of De'Anyers and Daniell between sources however this I have found to be the historical case.. in looking to upload several Van Dyck portraits (Peter Daniell MP) and his sister and aunt I have found them to be listed as De'Anyers however it is the same family.
I am happy to explore and make any edits you may suggest ? (I wondered if perhaps some paragraphs could be slimmed down slightly). However based on pages existing for other identical landed families in Cheshire (several of whom intermarried and are included in the Daniell article) and based on historical significance, and the other reasons mentioned It has its place on wiki, and just needs fleshing out being comparativley newer, which I was activley working on :). Starktoncollosal (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources go into significant prose depth on the family? Keep in mind that genealogies and other directories are not SIGCOV. Coverage of individual members of the family does not count towards notability of the family. Primary sources and passing mentions do not count at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source 6 - A Biography written on the family, and 1 certainly are the first to spring to mind. Can I ask the issue with primary sources coming from an academic writing background in early modern history i thought inclusion of these would bolster an articles notability and conslodiate its relevance ? I understand that for one or two members having pages not warranting a notability claim but surley the case can be made for, as seen in other noble families pages, members consistently throughout an extended time period having influence (as nobility did), - thus warranting notability ? Starktoncollosal (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starktoncollosal Source 6 was written in 1876. Source 1 was written in 1673! While I cannot access the latter, the former is essentially a family tree written out in prose. Significantly better sourcing is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, could you suggest what kind of sources you are looking for ? I thought that the 1876 Biography was well sourced in its own bibliography however I do agree with you, in that case could we possibly reach a consensus that on basis of introducing a more thorough source that the article no longer be marked for deletion and instead voted keep.
look forward to your advise and what sources would be best, Stark Starktoncollosal (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have in my files, x7 portraits of Daniell/De'Anyers mentioned in this article sourced online by Anthony Van Dyck, several by Sir Godfrey Kneller and Robert Walker also.
I see omitted from the article mention of John and Jane Daniell both slightly infamous writers with much information available online - John being from the Cheshire family and in the household of the Robert Devereux, Jane a gentlewoman to Frances Walsingham.. both of whom they later extorted and blackmailed. would be worth a mention.
The article overall has lots of sources in the bibliography and the information seems largely relevant however inclusion of a couple more consolidate ones is advised to bolster this,
However with somewhat consistent historical relevance over the generations since the 14th century in the north west also titleholders in France, it does appear that the family are of significant enough notability to retain and keep the page. Markievcks (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very interestimg are these available on Wikimedia ? Would be great to include these pictures. I have come across John and Jane Daniell and their respective manuscripts and will get a mention definitley somewhere at somepoint as well as the Normandy branch in some more detail.
could you review my reply above to previous ones regarding sources and what kind of one would bolster the article.
Hoping that this is resulting in a consensus starting to be reached ?? Starktoncollosal (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bumping discussion need some external feedback this has been active since 17th July would be hugely grateful to get it sorted. Starktoncollosal (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures are not yet on wikimedia, will get them uploaded over the next couple days. Markievcks (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to "bump", this isn't a discussion board, this discussion has its own page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize however surley the goal is to try and resolve deletion request and reach a consensus. I access this page through clicking participate in the "deletion discussion" I assumed this was a discussionary page and am just looking to try and generate slightly more active participation. Starktoncollosal (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think this page needs more participants, you can promote it. The rules for good promotion are here at WP:APPNOTE. Short version, so long as the posts you make do not attempt to persuade people (do that here instead) and do not target only people whom you think will agree with you, you can shout it from the rooftops. My rule of thumb is that people reading my promotion text should not know which side of the issue I'm on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Kannada-language television channels#News. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
TV9 Kannada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete I think it not to be deleted. Randomiaedit (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 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 no consensus‎. There does not appear to be consensus to delete, but it appears that there may be redirects or moves that the nominator can make outside of this deletion discussion (WP:BRD). Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 NRL pre-season results

[edit]
2022 NRL pre-season results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I want to propose that the 2022 NRL pre-season results be redirected to National Rugby League#Pre-season or deleted, in addition to the 2023 NRL pre-season results and 2024 NRL pre-season results articles being renamed to 2023 NRL Pre-season Challenge and 2024 NRL Pre-season Challenge respectively. A collection of independently organised friendlies grouped on to one page is a trivial list and the information is better suited on the "2022 [team] season" pages. As for 2023 and 2024, these were organised by the NRL and the title of those pages should reflect the official name "Pre-season Challenge".

I understand muti page move would have likely been a better format for this discussion, however the template did not seem to function properly. Mn1548 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative could be to merge/redirect to 2022 NRL season#Pre-season, adding details from the background but not the fixtures section. There are only four NRL teams without 2022 season articles, Raiders, Roosters, Tigers, and Warriors, so all the matches apart from 2 (Roosters against Raiders and Tigers) are covered by these articles. EdwardUK (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a more appropriate redirect, thanks. Mn1548 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Disagreeing with the contention to rename the 2023 and 2024 articles. Both include additional information (trials, All Stars etc) that don't quite fit into the NRL's "Pre-season Challenge" nomenclature. I think the article in question here is a reasonable fork from the 2022 NRL season results article, which effectively captures the intention of these pre-season results articles. If anything (and this is especially true in the WP:RL space), these articles just require more prose. Storm machine (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally agree with most of this, though it still doesn't cover my main issue with the page - its title. "2022 NRL season results" implies there is some sort of formal organisation by the NRL, which there wasn't until 2023 and the pre-season challenge. Re 2023 and 2024, the non pre-season challenge information is minimal, and can be moved to the pre-season section of the respective NRL season page leaving the pre-season page as purely pre-season challenge information. Mn1548 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:19, 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. Complex/Rational 14:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Crown of the Georgian Kingdom

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

This page is a sneaky recreation of Order of the Crown of Georgia which was deleted in this AfD in 2012 and again in 2015. The page was created by User:Yaurigil who has disclosed on their user page that they are paid by "House of Georgia" for their edits.

The article itself notes that the Kingdom of Georgia disintegrated in 1491. So clearly when this "order" was established in 2013 it had no fons honorum and couldn't be created by "royal decree" since the family were not in any kind of power for over 500 years.

None of the sources used for the article are reliable, most are self-published websites which are no longer active.

I tried searching for good sources but failed to find anything compelling. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:05, 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. Since this discussion was relisted, consensus has shifted towards this article not satisfying WP:LISTN and being WP:SYNTHy despite having many well-sourced individual entries. No keep !votes, old or new, have effectively refuted this line of reasoning. Complex/Rational 14:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential candidate firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while claims can individually be verified, the set as a whole suffers from the same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. I read through the prior AfD for this page and find the keep rationales expressed there unpersuasive (and essentially identical to the arguments raised in the later discussions I've linked here that were both closed delete) Wikilawyering: I think that the close of the first AfD for this page is particularly incongruous with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts two weeks later, a page with a much stronger claim to meeting LISTN, as sources compiling the firsts of US presidents as a set do exist, but which was closed as no consensus...but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. There is possibly some information in this page that could be merged to related biographies or related lists, although other than perhaps List of United States presidential firsts there is unlikely to be a good candidate for this to redirect to post-merge. signed, Rosguill talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per nom, I can see why this article meets some criteria for deletion, but upon reading it, its content seems worth keeping. It was put together well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orser. NLIST does not give any criteria that this article needs to meet, so that delete reason is invalid. Beyond that, not much from the past AfD has changed which was a clear keep. Swordman97 talk to me 05:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very strange reading of LISTN. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group pretty clearly establishes that we're expected to provide sources that discuss the set of list items as a group (if not necessarily in granular, enumerative detail each time). signed, Rosguill talk 13:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but require any addition to be sourced Same as presidential first pbp 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are referencing WP:NLIST, please explain how the page meets or fails to meet the guideline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; the arguments to keep here have little to no basis in policy. All topics need to be demonstrably notable to have a Wikipedia article, including lists. No such demonstration has been made here, and with the inclusion criteria being as woolly as they are, I don't see any argument that can be made. The historical content is largely okay, but the framing is such that we're setting ourselves up for trivia in the internet age ("first candidate to eat a burrito in a live TV debate") where the antics of any minor candidate would need to be included if even a marginal publication supports them. At the very least this needs reframing: "demographic firsts..." "electoral college firsts..." or something along those lines, though I would not personally like to see such articles either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The topic covered here does not meet NLIST. I have been unable to find sources that give significant coverage to the concept of "presidential candidate firsts". Additionally, this fails NOTTRIVIA; it's more like a listicle than an encyclopedic entry. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to expand on my comment above, what we want to see is sources describing the topic as a whole. All I can find is one-off descriptions of when a "first" occurred. Also, like Vanamonde93, I do not see a coherent inclusion criteria. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems like an easy delete, although I respect the views of those in disagreement above. This topic easily fails NLIST criterion. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's well sourced and people use it. Bkatcher (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's two currents running through the keep !votes; a novel interpretation of NLIST and that the article is sourced. Discussions of lists at AfD have consistently concluded that notability is demonstrated by showing that the *class* (subject, if you will) of the list is discussed in reliable sources (see for example: AfD on List of US Supreme Court decisions considered the worst, AfD on List of palaces in the United States, AfD on List of 2020 United States presidential electors). This is perfectly in accord with NLIST; what keep !votes are suggesting is an interpretation of NLIST that would be in conflict with *policy* on WP:SYNTHESIS. No keep !vote has shown, nor does the article contain, sourcing which speaks of the class of the list. Lacking this, there is no non-WP:OR way to define WP:LISTCRITERIA and the list is inevitably indiscriminate, again failing a core policy. While items might be sourced, an agglomeration of notable facts does not per se make the agglomeration notable, conversely some facts per se may not be notable, but their agglomeration might well be (as the 2020 presidential electors discussion demonstrates). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Town Hall 1873 Centre for the Performing Arts

[edit]
Town Hall 1873 Centre for the Performing Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a smalltown performing arts theatre, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for theatres. As always, theatres are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and books -- but this is referenced entirely to the theatre's own self-published content about itself on its own primary source website, which is not support for notability, and cites absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A directory entry published by the government is not a WP:GNG-building third party source, and per WP:ORGDEPTH something like this does not get into Wikipedia just because it has a some coverage in minor community hyperlocals like Durham Region or Clarington This Week — and Durham Region is still functionally just suburbs of Toronto, so the Toronto Star is still fundamentally local coverage rather than evidence of wider recognition. So two hits in the Toronto Star counts for something, but it doesn't count for enough by itself, and nothing else in that list is good enough either. We would have to see evidence that it was widely recognized with coverage beyond the GTA, like from The Globe and Mail or the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen or the Montreal Gazette, because things of purely local significance require more than just a handful of purely local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that it meets WP:ORGDEPTH, I am arguing that it meets WP:NBUILD. Additionally, the first source appears to verify that it meets WP:GEOFEAT. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kouroudjel

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

I 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]

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. ✗plicit 11:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland's Forgotten Valour

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

Found nothing for this book. No reviews, only a single passing mention in a newspaper article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any WP:RS talking about the book Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated above, there don't seem to be any reviews of this book (checked PW, Kirkus, Booklist, Library Journal); I couldn't find any RSes through Google Scholar either. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to be a particularly notable work. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the book deals with a noteworthy subject, the book itself is not noteworthy. There are insufficient sources available to establish notability of book and author. Coldupnorth (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Opatovský

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

Opatovský played a total of 861 minutes before disappearing in 2016. I can't find any better article than an interview on SME. Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:35, 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 Speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Sources presented, satisfies NBOOK (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art

[edit]
Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find nothing on this book beyond passing mentions and a two sentence review-ish paragraph in a monograph of uncertain reliability on archive.org (might be fine, but it's the only thing). It was reissued as The Art of the Cinematographer in 1978 but I can't find anything for that either. Redirect to author Leonard Maltin? PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the outage I forgot that Newspapers.com existed, and upon searching there are some hits, but I'm unable to tell if any are sigcov or they're just book listings of recent publications. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs), I learned here how to log in to newspapers.com on www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org so that I can create clippings again. Cunard (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Gomery, Douglas (Spring 1972). "Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art". The Velvet Light Trap. No. 4. p. 55. ProQuest 1306638267.

      The review provides six paragraphs of coverage about the book. The review notes: "Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art by Leonard Maltin (New American Library, $1.50). Leonard Maltin seems to be creating his own personal series of film books for Signet. His fourth book (the ads claim more are on the way) is a study of the Hollywood cameraman and his role in the development of the American cinema. Although the unfortunate lack of a table of contents leads to initial confusion on the part of the reader, Behind the Camera is separated into two distinct parts. The first quarter of the book is an essay about the important cameramen in American film history. This survey, essentially in chronological order, unhappily exhibits the same lack of style Maltin displayed in his Movie Comedy Teams. His approach is best characterized by its "star" orientation and its excessive use of superlatives. Here he presents biographical data for each cameraman-star along with highlights—their important films—and a quote attesting to their excellence, usually from the American Cinematographer. This critical procedure, together with the lack of depth about any single cameraman, limits the essay substantially. He has simply tried to say too much in too little space. Maltin is also hampered by insufficient technical knowledge." He concedes that he knew very little about cinematography before he began the book, and whether he learnt much in the course of writing it is questionable."

      The review concludes: "With all its faults, Behind the Camera does mark an improvement over Charles Higham's recent Hollywood Cameramen (Indiana), which has almost the same format. ..."

    2. Rubin, Jay (1979-05-03). "The Rubins Look at the Books". Muscatine Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Leonard Maltin's new edition of The Art of the Cinematographer is a last minute arrival as we go to press. This volume is an enlarged edition of Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art published in 1971. The book is divided into two sections. The first part reviews the history and role of the cinematographer in American film. All of the important discussed cinematographers are Bitzer, Garmes, Rosher, Toland and many more. This part of The Art of the Cinematographer is the most thorough discussion of cinematographers in the American cinema published to date. The importance of this individual cannot be understated. In part two, five interviews with important cinematographers concerning the entire period of American films have been reproduced. The five individuals are Arthur Miller, Hal Mohr, Hal Rossen, Lucien Ballard and Conrad Hall. These gentlemen show how films are made through the camera lens. They give a new and rewarding approach to the art and technique of the cinema.A complete list of Academy Award nominees and winners is included, along with filmographies and many rare production stills. Once again, Leonard Maltin, that noted film historian, has provided us with a quality effort in this Dover Publications Inc. release."

    3. Mapes, Terry (1979-07-29). "The forest is an old but perfect life circle". News Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "The Art of the Cinematographer by Leonard Maltin (Dover, 140 pp., $5, paper). The people behind the camera are as important to filmmaking as those in front of the camera, but their names are virtually unknown to the public. How many cinematographers can you name? Maltin, in this new edition of a book first published in 1971, tries to make up for some of this neglect by explaining the cinematographer's work and providing a history of his art. The book also includes interviews with five of the best, including Hal Rossen ("The Wizard of Oz") and Conrad Hall ("Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"). The book has photos on practically every page. Film buffs will find it interesting."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Mitchell, Lisa (1979-06-17). "Screenplay". Los Angeles Times. ProQuest 158927166. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "The Art of the Cinematographer: A Survey and Interviews with Five Masters by Leonard Maltin (Dover: $6, paperback; illustrated) is an updated, enlarged version of Maltin's 1971 Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art. It's relaxed, thorough, thoughtful and has comfortably balanced overview with interviews. The "five masters" sharing their legacies are Arthur C. Miller, Hal Mohr, Hal Rosson, Conrad Hall and Lucien Ballard,"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Behind the Camera: The Cinematographer's Art (reissued as The Art of the Cinematographer) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much (and also for the tip on how to log in again, haha). I can withdraw this, thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! I am excited that there is a way to log in again to create clippings. Thank you again to AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk · contribs) for discovering this! Cunard (talk) 12:01, 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. ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines Flight 1019

[edit]
Turkish Airlines Flight 1019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only news about the event I could found WP:RS is from Yahoo! which is from 2016 which definitely fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since Wikipedia is WP:not news. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 17:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Non-notable aviation incident. TH1980 (talk) 02:20, 4 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. I see a rough consensus that, while the article needs improvement, the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon M. Sweeney

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

Article appears to be promotional and has been edited extensively by user:Jonmsweeney, user:Jonmsweeney1234 and user:Friedsparrow, all SPA accounts who have also added Sweeney's name to other articles.

Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN [17], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met. Axad12 (talk) 06:54, 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 ITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & fix article issues (or draftify). Yes, the article has had extensive edits by CoI accounts. However, as noted in the nom, much of the promo text has been addressed. Poorly sourced is not the same as unsourced, and it also is different from "unsourcable". A quick look through JSTOR shows that Sweeney is an often referenced academic in his field, and I think that the subject would be found to be notable with a little bit of effort. Fixing an article's issues is generally preferable to deletion (WP:ATD), and if that can't be done, it should be draftified. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Butlerblog
    Hi, yes point taken. Just to clarify on the issue of sources...
    When I said "poorly sourced" above I meant that some of the material is entirely unsourced and some of the sources that do exist are either written by Sweeney himself or are to YouTube or are promotional links to where his books can be purchased on Amazon.
    With regards to your comment re: "unsourcable", I think it's worth noting that the only person to have contributed to this article to any significant degree is the subject himself. If the subject has been unable to provide sourcing for basic info like his date of birth, place of birth, and details of his family history and educational history, then I think it's reasonable to assume that those details are indeed "unsourcable". Adding [citation needed] to that sort of thing would just be overly optimistic.
    So, it seems to me that there are genuine issues on the sourcing here for about 50% of the material in the current article. That being the case, I would also support your secondary suggestion of draftify.
    I take on board also the comments below re: reviews and WP:NAUTHOR. Axad12 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correcting myself, in my post above I said "The subject" but I ought to have said "the subject or someone editing on his behalf " Axad12 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and address issues. Sweeney meets WP:NAUTHOR as multiple books have been the subject of reviews in reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are COI issues it isn't TNT level bad, so there's no use deleting this when he is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comments below, where is the evidence that the subject is notable? Axad12 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did find a few reviews of his books (and added one to the article). But most of his books are un-reviewed because citing Publisher's Weekly merely means that the book was published - PW's role in the world is to provide one-paragraph "reviews" (often no more than listings) to everything they receive so that bookstores and libraries can see what has been published. Those "reviews" do not provide notability. And even if he has a few notable books, an article about a person requires reliable sourcing about that person. I went through many pages of search results and did not find any independent biographical information. I can change my mind if someone finds that information. Lamona (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona: Sweeney's book have been reviewed by PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal, which are often used to establish notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria. Lamona (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona: If they review "EVERYTHING", why haven't they reviewed all of Sweeney's books? ETA: Per NBASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' or 'Mary Jones was hired by My University') that does not discuss the subject in detail." I would argue that having a single article dedicated to a book is not trivial -- even if the review is only a paragraph or two. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Detail" A single paragraph does not provide either detail nor much analysis. But again, this is an article for a PERSON. At least one WP:AUTHOR criterion must be met. You appear to think that he meets #3 of that policy. I would need more indication that he is considered "...an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." That would be met when we would find other theologians referencing his works or writing about him. Lamona (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be arguing that since not all of his books have been reviewed, that demonstrates that he must be notable. That seems like a very questionable claim.
    Evidently, if a non-notable author publishes a great many books the chances of some of them not appearing on the Publisher's World radar is rather high.
    That doesn't indicate that the author is notable, if anything it indicates that he is not notable.
    Realistically there will be 100s of 1,000s of non-notable authors worldwide who have published an endless stream of non-notable books. Some of their books will have been reviewed online either by PW or by some tame outlet which the author has connections to. That does not infer notability. Axad12 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: How do you determine which types of reviews are worthwhile to determine notability? According to WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources provided are considered reliable and independent, and given that they have full articles dedicated to each book, they also provide significant coverage. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Significa liberdade
    To be honest, I'm not sure. However, I'd assume reviews in locations which (a) do not attempt to review vast numbers of books for internal publishing industry purposes, (b) can be reliably assumed to be independent of the author, (c) carry some kind of weight (i.e. not local newspapers, blogs, fringe publications, etc.), i.e. the sorts of basic qualifications that one would expect to see in relation to other Wikipedia policies on sourcing, notability, etc.
    If any book review counts towards notability then pretty much every author ever published would qualify as notable for Wikipedia purposes - which I think we can agree cannot be correct.
    I feel to some extent that the fact that we are having this discussion on reviews demonstrates the lack of notability. E.g. for a genuinely notable author it wouldn't be necessary to consider this point because reviews in well known newspapers, magazines and periodicals would be available in abundance. Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be adding a lot of Library Journal reviews to the page. Isn't that basically just another industry publication which mass produces reviews? Axad12 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: Personally, I consider LJ, PW, Kirkus, and Booklist to be 1) reliable and 2) independent. Given that they provide significant coverage of each book (not just a trivial mention), I argue that they confirm notability. Can you explain why you do not consider them to be reliable or independent? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that. It was Lamona who said, above, "All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING".
    My opinion is that a review in a source which reviews everything, or almost everything, cannot possibly confer notability because, if it did, almost all authors who have ever had a book published would be notable by Wikipedia standards - which evidently cannot be true.
    Or do you believe that every single author who has ever had a book or two reviewed in those sources is notable by Wikipedia standards? Axad12 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: I believe any "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a [...] collective body of work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is notable. My understanding is that means that any author who has had multiple books reviewed in reliable trade magazines is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Can you point to guidelines or past AfD discussions that claim otherwise? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: I found three additional book reviews through JSTOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have so much time to spare, maybe try finding some sources for the content of the actual article, which is currently notably bereft of sources.
    Do be aware, however, that the subject (or someone very close to him) has been extensively COI editing the article under 3 accounts since it was set up 8 years ago, and even he was apparently unable to find sourcing for half of the material in the present article.
    Good luck!
    (P.S.: This is why 'draftify' is a very serious proposition.) Axad12 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: Given the above, three people have !voted to keep and one delete, though they have not further replied. Personally, I believe that if we draftified, this article would pass through AfC and be back in the main space, given that it has at least three reliable, independent sources. For a suitable alternative, I could move the article to something like Jon M. Sweeney bibliography if biographical information cannot be found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at present it is 3:2 (rather than 3:1) in favour of Keep because, you also need to including my Delete vote as nominator. However, 2 of the 5 voters would also accept Draftify - so I would say that it is fairly close at present and the AfD really needs extra eyes on it rather than more comments from you and I.
    I brought the AfD mainly on the strength of comments on the article talk page and a feeling that the extreme WP:PROMO nature of the article a few weeks ago indicated that there were potential issues over notability.
    We've covered some issues above and I think that has been very useful, but I really think what is needed now is more eyes.
    With regard to your idea above (J.M.Sw bibliography) I would say that that would be fine as it would prevent the article from becoming clogged up again with huge amounts of COI fluff, which will be the very likely result if the result of this AfD is Keep.
    Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts above. Axad12 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your nomination statement counts as your delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 4 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! 02:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domonique Ramirez

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

WP:BLP1E applies here, as there is no coverage present for this subject outside of a brief and non-significant controversy from a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine presidential firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while individual claims can mostly be verified, there don't appear to be any publications dedicated to discussing Philippine presidential firsts as a set, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts signed, Rosguill talk 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Congress

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG in meaningful ways. No sign of lasting impact or import beyond the less-than-twenty-sentence Georgia Straight piece and the old radio interview, both from early 2014, I find no real coverage. The only thing I can find from anywhere but the archives of their own website that suggests the group did anything beyond a single cooking demonstration in 2014 was a line in a 2019 blog post about Vegan Congress being an annual event at Emily Carr University. Google and Duck-Duck-Go searches were based on searching for "Vegan Congress" "Emily Carr" to avoid references to an early organization that had Vegan Congress in their name. newspapers.com search from the group's founding date in 2013 to today (for just "vegan congress") found nada. Group's YouTube page delivered 4 videos to its 11 subscribers, all marked as a decade old. Group's web page has been blank for several years now, last non-blank archived version has a single blog post from 2019, and before that, all activity is 2015 or earlier. This is a grou[p that was briefly active, did little of visibility and impact. Nat Gertler (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 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 Draftify‎. If editors want to create a redirect from this page title, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's That Girl (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, this film should not have an article yet. This article has been draftified by KingArti twice despite the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, and the draftification has been reverted. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - It looks like there is consensus that the article should not remain in main space. I think that the previous attempts to send it to draft were made in good faith knowing that filming has not happened, they just didn't follow the guidelines, perhaps unaware of them. That said, I think going to draft space is the best WP:ATD option, mostly because there has now been a slight bit of news that the production might get back on track with some casting. The work that has gone into this article thus far can be built upon in draft space. I think an outright delete would not be the best option because its likely to be further developed in draft space. I do not think a redirect is the best option for the history of this article because the work would likely get buried behind the redirect, and a new draft would be started over, losing the work thus far. Not a problem per WP:PARALLEL per se; just a bit dissapointing to the previous authors. However, I would recommend that a redirect be left behind targeting Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions that could be tagged {{R with possibilities}} so that people can find info and at the same time, have a path to develop the draft. (Or target Madonna filmography instead since the mention is already there and wouldn't need to be added.) -2pou (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify The article stating that the project has re-started has the air of a rumor rather than a fact. It is pretty clear that this isn't well into production or post-production. The article should wait until there is something more concrete to show. Yes, there are lots of sources but most of them are just the Madonna-adjacent hype. Lamona (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Agree it's too soon and the article should wait until something has actually happened. No need to have an article on this ahead of time.Editing84 (talk) 19:11, 5 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. The consensus is that WP:NACTOR is not met at this point in the subject's career. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeepa Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:48, 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. The consensus is that this article should be Deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Didwana

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 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. The consensus is that this article should be Deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Merta (1754)

[edit]
Battle of Merta (1754) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep did you mind checking the soruces?
https://archive.org/details/rajput-maratha-relations-1707-1760-ad-vol.-1/page/504/mode/1up
Pg 480-482 has a three page Coverage even with the name of the battle mentioned as Battle of Merta
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.111093/page/n128/mode/1up
pg 20-21 has one page Coverage
https://archive.org/details/maratha-rajput-relations-during-the-18th-century/page/105/mode/1up
Pg 80 -82 has a three page Coverage also with the name of the Battle Mentioned Chauthcollector (talk) 04:25, 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! 06:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kota

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The article fails to establish notability as it lacks extensive independent sources and coverage.Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 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. ✗plicit 03:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mister World countries

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

Insufficient sourcing. The single source here is Pageantopolis, a personal website described by consensus at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as not suitable for establishing notability. It's been tagged as under-referenced for a decade without any improvement and is unlikely to change. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever. Admins always do what they please, so just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. If admins did what they please, they wouldn't be admins for long. I'd like to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 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 redirect‎ to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Belle Montessori School

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

No source on its current state and for most of its history served as a surrogate bulletin board for the school. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The Banner talk 08:35, 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 redirect‎ to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education. ✗plicit 11:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Montessori Center

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

No source for most of its history. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education, fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 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 redirect‎ to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion on User talk:Liz, it turns out the correct target article is List of schools in Bacoor#Private schools. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori dei San Lorenzo

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

No source since its creation back in 2011. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education, per nom and it also fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The Banner talk 09:07, 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 redirect‎ to San Ildefonso, Bulacan#Education. RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenville School of Montessori

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

Virtually unsourced. One singular source, which appears to be an unrelated opinion poll on Senate elections. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:06, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habari

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

Not notable. Per the articles talk page this article has had two substantive nominations for deletion and the main advocate for keeping this article - User:Morydd - is hardly an unbiased source, considering that they're also a member of the Habari project on Github: https://github.com/morydd I find the original nominators arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) to be valid, more so now that the project has been now abandoned for ~10 years. Furthermore, the last afd was more than 15 years ago.

The sources provided are not of sufficient quality to establish notability:

  • "2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project". All this seems to have amounted to was inclusion in a list of other projects, near as I can tell. That's hardly significant coverage.
  • Smashing Magazine. Habari got a two sentence mention in that article and altho that's more than Habari got as a result of its inclusion in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project it's not enough to constitute significant coverage.

TerraFrost (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dead project, I could find no sources about it. Badbluebus (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, given that this is the 5th time this article has been brought to AFD, I would like to see more support from experienced editors before deleting as it survived earlier AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The 3rd and 4th nominations were brought forth by a disruptive editor who did not have any valid reason for deletion, and thus the AfDs were speedily closed. I think, in essence, the article has only survived 1 AfD; the first nomination resulted in a delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Habari was a finalist in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project. Together with the other references, I think that adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See TerraFrost's bullet points. Part of the reason we require SIGCOV is so that we can actually cite and cover the subject. Not all awards are notable, and a community choice awards, especially for Best New Project, even within SourceForge, doesn't seem very notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Blogs, download sites... that's about all I can find in my searches. Nothing we can use for notability. Sourcing now in the article isn't really helpful either. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG here; attempts to find academic or industry press discussion came up short. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 00:41, 3 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! 02:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Limoki

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Absence of significant coverage. Was only able to find a routine transfer announcement and stats pages with online search. C679 03:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references added. IdiotSavant (talk) 04:52, 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 redirect‎ to Viacom18#Owned channels. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Gujarati

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

Lot's of churnalism and unreliable sources, including a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously tagged but still cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE. If anything, recommending a redirect to Viacom18 as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are just regurgitation of announcements that the channel is going to launch. Anyone can put out a press release that gets picked up by the media and re-run in different news outlets. This is not something that would count towards notability. I also do not put much stock in TOI, especially since it looks like it will not be considered towards notability based on current WP:RSN discussion (to be determined of course). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 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 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! 05:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wild & Bare

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searching throws up articles about the Founder, but trivial coverage about the organisation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikilover3509 (talk) 2:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 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 of the company. As it stands, the article reads like a promotional leaflet and as mentioned above, most of the content concerns the "founder", not the company. HighKing++ 11:41, 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 redirect‎ to Hugh Laurie#Writing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Paper Soldier

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

Article on a book that appears to have never come out. Fails WP:NBOOK - it is briefly mentioned in a few articles, but never as the primary subject. Astaire (talk) 02:44, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senarath Liyana Arachchi

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:12, 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 no consensus‎. With no comments after a second relist, I don't want to relist it again. I don't see a consensus here with a strong Keep opinion expressed. But editors interested in a possible Redirect can discuss this outside of an AFD discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khais Millen

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

Immediately refunded after soft deletion in 2023 but no change to address concerns in first AfD. Film writer/director who does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NBIO. Most sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if they mention him at all; there's an interview that's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a single example of WP:SIGCOV that exhibits all the hallmarks of unreliable content of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not enough to pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR AND WP:CREATIVE with at least 3 2 notable films directed and 3 2 written (not mentioning the fact he produced. 2); the said films are notable creations that received independent and in-depth coverage mentioning him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of WP:DIRECTOR are you referring to with "three notable films"? (Only two films he has been involved in even have en-wiki pages and only one of those he directed.) The only criterion I could plausibly see cited is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," but there's no evidence that any of his works are "significant or well-known." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider his debut film as director notable enough. See coverage about it online. It has no page yet on WP, true. Added 2 links to the article. Writer: my bad, I had counted Lipstick, which is a short. Even if it's only two or even if it it was only one, he would pass both SNGs because these works can be considered significant, as coverage shows. I'll leave it at that as he is a really clear pass imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (number of significant films; clarification: 3 or 4 films including 2 directed (Thala; and I count Aakashvani), 2 written (Adithattu and Thala, to which one can add again Aakashvani)); the 1st has received a significant award and is clearly significant imv).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the opening assertion in the nomination: sorry but no change to address concerns in first AfD is an inaccurate statement.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, no substantive change. The addition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION citations does not address the concerns in the AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. If those mentions (trivial or not) allow to verify he had an essential role in notable productions they do address the concerns, especially as one mentioned the award for Best Second film that was not mentioned before, unless I am mistaken. I remember checking them (or even adding some) myself back then. I should leave it at that that, as I had said, sorry. Thanks, anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either to Thala (the apparently better known film) or to Adithattu (the film that won an award) would be fine by me. Wikishovel (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 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 redirect‎ to Request (broadcasting). Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Request

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

I don't think this is a thing and I don't understand how the second paragraph relates to the topic. Fuddle (talk) 01:34, 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. ✗plicit 00:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshneq I Palestinian Campaign

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

Incoherent page created by a non-extended-confirmed user conflating an Ancient Egyptian campaign in Palestine (region) with modern-day Palestinians, with a map of the Gaza Strip.

If anything, the historical campaign should be discussed at Shoshenq I instead, where a much more accurate summary is already present. There is no current need for a split article, let alone one that violates a CTOP's ECR restriction by conflating it with recent events. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:24, 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. ✗plicit 00:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Public School

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

Unreferenced for 11 years. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Notability of schools now much stricter since last AfD. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The prior AfD is irrelevant due to a later RfC. The Banner talk 09:10, 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.