Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 09	November 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Risk & Compliance Portal

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

Purely promotional and no establishment of notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Internet, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is promotional with nothing to pass notability. Fails WP:NORG. I support nomination rationale. Nothing is found in Google search and sources provided are not reliably sufficient. Mekomo (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can I ask what the reason for this is? I'm happy to fix any issues

Thanks Ecwdgbt (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reason given in nomination. The lack of independent sourcing makes the whole thing read like a press release. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi

Please could you clarify what you mean by 'lack of independent sourcing'. The majority of the citations are from independent sources including Sky News, The Independent and The Financial Times. Certain points have been substantiated via the company's homepage and their annual report but this has also been done on HomeServe, Legal & General and Admiral Group.

This is not supposed to act as a press release or as a marketing tool but appreciate your point. Would it benefit from adding in any new sections?

Thanks in advance for your feedback! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the article in the independent, for example - the many, many external links in the article are via Linkby which indicates that Domestic and General are paying for them. Which is why there's so many external links - you wouldn't normally see that many in a newspaper article. It's an advertorial, not independent coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for flagging this. I have removed the independent article as it is not an unbiased, reliable source. Ecwdgbt (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A prior discussion from 2018-9, touching on COI in the instance at the time but also on notability, can be read here. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is an odd one: a firm over 100 years old, whose products are used by 1/3 of UK households according to a 2019 Bloomberg item("Abu Dhabi Fund to Buy 30% of Domestic & General Group"), previously a plc but taken private then changing hands several times. But the problem is that despite their name recognition and near-ubiquity in domestic appliance warranty, there's not a lot of coverage outside announcements of the firm changing hands, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am close to saying "But it's notable!" but unless better coverage can be found, would have to say it falls short on WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback!

Here are three topics aside from the firm taking hands that have led to coverage that I would argue isn't trivial.

Offices

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/domestic--general-hopes-create-5084777

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/domestic-general-flexible-working-london-hq-revamp-wfh-b942634.html

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/big-nottingham-employer-domestic-general-7422086

Partnerships

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-five-year-aftercare-deal-with-marks-electrical/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/panasonic-and-dg-sign-a-six-year-deal/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-three-year-deal-with-lg/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/hughes-partners-with-domestic-and-general/

https://retailtimes.co.uk/domestic-general-extends-deal-with-john-lewis/

Acquisitions

https://www.cityam.com/american-adventure-continues-for-domestic-general-as-it-makes-second-acquisition/

https://www.postonline.co.uk/news/7955324/dg-aims-to-create-uber-like-claims-experience

https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20230629.html

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/domestic-general-group-to-acquire-after-inc

In addition to this, the CEO Matthew Crummack has garnered lots of coverage over the years (see below):

https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/former-gocompare-ceo-donates-major-sum-create-opportunities-students-need

https://newsnreleases.com/2021/08/04/matthew-crummack-joins-domestic-general-as-ceo/

https://www.aston.ac.uk/about/governance-management/matthew-crummack

https://www.postonline.co.uk/personal/7955323/big-interview-matthew-crummack-domestic-general

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/16007578

Let me know what you think or if the article would benefit from any new sections to showcase its notability?

Thank you! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the weight to be placed on items about offices, partnerships and acquisitions, see the Standard notices points under WP:CORPTRIV. The City AM piece is bylined, but is ultimately a summary of announcement PR quotes. Coverage about the present CEO is relative to that person more than the company. You ask about what can "showcase" notability; in a way that is indicative of the problem of an article contributed by an editor with connection to the company at present. What is lacking is the longer perspective: substantial coverage about the firm's history. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would argue that Domestic & General is newsworthy in its own right in particular when opening new offices and through its CEO Matthew Crummack. Not in the sense that the business inherits notability through Crummack, but that his decisions for the business are often of note in the media.

It is a global company that employs over 3000 people and partners with hundreds of manufacturers to provide appliance warranty to 1 in 3 homes in the UK. I understand that ubiquity in homes does not necessarily mean 'notability' but I would ask that some of the references sources are revisited as "reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it".

Any articles that have been correctly flagged as being biased have been removed from this draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) — Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It would be helpful if some of these new sources brought to the discussion were assessed to see if they can contribute to establishing some level of notability for this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Scream To

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

Too limited in coverage. Out of the sources here, two are announcements (one focused more on the graphic novel with little to say about the soundtrack), two are profiles that only briefly mention this release (one gives a small paragraph and the other just a sentence), and the review from Sputnik which has never given me the most confidence as a source. And having found nothing else, I don't see notability met. I suggest a redirect to Poppy (singer)#2019–2020: I Disagree where the subject is mentioned in prose, with potential to merge and expand it to its own paragraph. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you redirect an album page to an artist page? 2603:6010:FD00:2500:90E3:F269:6076:AA3B (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is not inherited and redirects are cheap. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's information on the album there which readers may still look for, just not enough to justify a standalone page. Alternatives to deletion are preferred. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cave Cay

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

No reliable sources, and a before couldn't find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean, Bahamas, and Islands. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of islands of the Bahamas as AtD. A small unpopulated island, unlike Cave Cay, which one of the sources in this article is actually describing. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for this redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base Line Cay

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

No clear notability. No reliable sources, and none exist. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bahamas and Islands. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of islands of the Bahamas as AtD. A tiny, unpopulated islet. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for this redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. as the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet and there are not arguments to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ness

AfDs for this article:

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

per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles, Apart from that it does not comply with WP:SINGER and sources not WP:RS. Pitille02 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure a WP:BEFORE was done. Interestingly, this guy is known for his recent criminal arrest and conviction (see coverage in Panama America, En Segundos, Critica and Telemetro), but that's not in the article. Separately from the criminal activity, there is WP:SIGCOV of his reggae career in Panama America, Telemetro (which notes a major award he received from the Panamanian Ministry of Culture and Critica. So we have a WP:GNG pass. Article definitely needs cleanup and updating, but WP:DINC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added those links to the talk page for anyone who comes across the article in the future... strange that this is the 3rd nomination of the article but there doesn't seem to be a 2nd one. Recon rabbit 15:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 11 November 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.

Ben Cay

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

No indication of importance. No good sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bahamas and Islands. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MrBeast - all the news I could find is of this 12-acre island owned by MrBeast that he gave away in one of his contests, was sold back to, and abandoned. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam Rabel

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

Non notable Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor. The article has some refs, but all of them are basically interview masquerading as article, WP:PRIMARY. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much! He isn't a former mayor but also politician featured in lot of Bigg press News. He was the Mayor of Golapganj which was indeed featured in various bigg news like The Business Standard and The daily star although Aminul Islam Rabel was not featured primarily but as Mayor of Golapgonj. And first finish the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Golapganj Therealbey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it is not ready for the main space. If he is noteworthy, you will certainly be able to find information about him to write an article that is not just an infobox. In that case, move to Draft, improve, and ask for a review. If there is nothing else, delete without delay. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't written that doesn't mean ge isn't important! there is much info about him on internet but not written in Wikipedia Therealbey (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Runkle

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

Research shows Milo helped launch a fund called Joyful Ventures to invest in food sustainable companies and co-founded non-profit Mercy for Animals. The mainstream news coverage where his name appears are about the fund launch (and then very little else), and he is only mentioned as one of the cofounders, and there doesn’t seem to be mainstream coverage of Mercy for Animals in connection with him (or in general really). Not clear he has enough mainstream coverage to hit the notability bar. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would a Move to Joyful Ventures be a possibility worth considering? I see some references, some are WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. [1] Andre🚐 22:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerónimo Lluberas

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

There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Medicine. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Waters Tillman

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Maxine as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 3 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Golapganj

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

Non notable article about Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor position (don't be confused with city corporation mayor). In the past we have deleted many mayoral articles elected to this position e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel) as the position isn't considered automatically notable per WP:NPOL. There are some refs on the article but it's completely unrelated. Fails WP:GNG.

Also the article is very short, there is no need for a separate article. (It can be merged with Golapganj Municipality.) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:NPOL there is nothing written like that and page like Mayor of Sylhet exist . And City corporation is also the same thing just it's the main municipal org. And Mayor of Golapganj has been featured on several notable news like The Business Standard etc. So I think there no legitimate reason to delete the page. Therealbey (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet is a major Bangladeshi city, so it makes sense that an article about the mayor of Sylhet exists. Whereas according to the infobox, Golapganj has a population of around 40,000. I don't know about any Bengali sources but in English at least, the only thing I can find is one incident, which is not enough for its own page.

And WP:NPOL does say that in the first bullet point, being the mayor of a city isn't at the international, national or state/province level, therefore there is no notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic notability, rather. Procyon117 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All though the municipal corporation is small in population 40,000 but it has its under the Upazila and in Upazila population is 3,16,149 and whole upazila count's the mayor as whole upazila mayor. Mayor was also featured in the daily star , business standard , daily observer In The financial Express . Therealbey (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about. Upazila (3rd level administrative division) is administered by Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) and not by mayor. Municipalities (aka Pourosova) are one of lower level (4th level) administrative areas in Bangladesh, as i said, Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor position isn't considered automatically notable per WP:NPOL. You have to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and talks about this Golapganj Mayor position. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check I have given those sources above ↑ Therealbey (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, it definitely eliminates, this is less of a stub. If someone can demonstrate that there is more good information to include, they can work on a draft and then try again. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I’m confused why we routinely eliminate articles about small government entities, but some folks seem hesitant to delete this one. It looks to all accounts to be a run of the mill agency. Bearian (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Golapganj Municipality#Government as an alternative to deletion. The information about the duties of the mayor can be merged. Merging and redirecting would preserve the page history in the event that this topic ever becomes notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Are there any objections to the proposed Merge? Also, a review of sources brought into this discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Greene, North Carolina

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

I believe I have found a hoax as part of WP:NOV24. It seems unusual to me that a US Army fort established in 1890 and was used through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and present as claimed by the article would have no online presence; newspapers.com results in North Carolina for Fort Greene are referring to fortifications elsewhere, and there's no mention of a Fort Greene in North Carolina in Hanning's "Forts of the United States". I have found some evidence of a "Camp Green" in NC that existed from 1917-1919, but I cannot find anything supporting the existence of this or the specific claims in the article. A review of the page creator's talk page suggests that the page creator had a history of creating hoaxes. Hog Farm _Talk 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Carolina. Hog Farm _Talk 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NRV. I also came across this during WP:NOV24 and found no evidence (online at least) of it having existed - Dumelow (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a hoax, but this is definitely referring to Camp Greene, which we already have an article on. Henry Hill and George Johnson (World War I supercentenarian) were both trained there. Silverseren^C 23:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be hesistant to call this not a hoax. This article claims (and has since 2007) It was established in 1890 and was used through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and present. The facility trains U.S. Army soldiers and National Guard soldiers. Camp Greene was in existence from 1917-1919, so the claims about 1890, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the present day all appear to be patently false. Hog Farm _Talk 23:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Henry Hill, Hill trained at Fort Bragg (which makes sense given his service with the 82nd Airborne Division). He was also born in 1943, meaning he couldn't have been anyplace near Camp Greene. Intothat darkness 21:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and whille it may *originate* with Camp Greene it's embellished to the point of being a WP:HOAX by an author who admitted to writing hoax articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camp Greene, per Silver seren. Even if the information currently in the nominated article is a hoax, the title can still be redirected, given the commonality of using both "Fort" and "Camp" for military installations. BD2412 T 15:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a nuance with the names, though. In US Army use Camp typically indicates a temporary installation, while Fort means the location is going to be developed further and used for an extended period. You will see camps absorbed by forts (Camp Funston on Fort Riley, for example) as their projected temporary missions become more permanent, but never the reverse. Intothat darkness 21:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - saying the creator's talk page "suggests...a history of creating hoaxes" is putting it more diplomatically than I would have done ;) Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect may be seen as giving legitimacy to the hoax. Intothat darkness 21:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Intothatdarkness. I don’t think our readers will search for a fort only in North Carolina. They will just type in “Fort Green”. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Waters Willard

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Julia as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found a few sources about Maxine and/or her musical group The Waters. Another option would be deleting all the individual pages for the members of the group and making a single page for The Waters.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3]^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainsage (talk • contribs) 05:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see a WP:GNG pass based on WP:SIGCOV in the Washington Post piece raised above and the documentary 20 Feet from Stardom. However, I agree with Rainsage that it might be better to create a single page for the Waters. That's a decision that can be made editorially, though, since the sources support a "keep" here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Coimbra

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

We have here a good example of WP:BLP1E, a person whose purported notability is tied to a single event, i.e. a single beauty pageant event. There are three sources which are difficult to evaluate as a non-Portuguese reader; however, they note a) the pageant win and b) a couple of appearances at charity events in support of the pageant, including a (possibly public??) breast exam. This is way too thin to support the general notability guideline, and there are no SNGs that could apply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauriela Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)
Zuleica Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (two sources, one of which appears to be a nonexistent Facebook page)
Jurema Ferraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)

I have bundled the above articles for the same reason, except that they have even less sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: The Opais link you gave here is already in the article, and I dealt with its thinness in the deletion nomination. The embassy link provides just three sentences on the pageant, one of which is about the judges and not the subject of this bio. The South African gives us a bulleted list of stuff in the pageant handout like birth place and star sign, but nothing of substance for a biography – certainly nothing that could be used to expand the article. The Forbes article says very little at all, but notes she has an afro, a red swimsuit, and an unnamed "social project", but nothing really about the person. AngoRussia, a single sentence mentioning birthplace, area of study, and country of residence, nothing more. These, like the original sources, are shallow and/or in-passing and tied to the single event, which just underscores this is a BLP1E situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An award is not an event, that passes, it’s an honour, that remains, and BLP1E does not apply imv. The guideline does not mention awards, at least, unless I missed it, whereas ANYBIO does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tend to agree with the analysis above. The South African is a minimal source, if we had more, we could use it. But it's just not enough. The rest are trivial mentions or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ANYBIO might apply as she received a significant award; if other users disagree redirect to Miss_Angola#Titleholders -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the fact this was a bundled Afd....my !vote was originally about Lauriela Martins. Coverage in Pt exists about her. Ana Coimbra: see above, now. Other: idem. So keep all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Check all articles included in this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Mali relations

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

The article is based on entirely primary sources. Fails GNG. Curiously the article says sources retrieved in Sept 2024 and March 2022 when the article was just created. This source is not indepth and this one is a small 1 line mention of Mali. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, the only GNG-qualifying sources I could find online had to do with Ireland's peacekeeping mission in Mali. Noah ^💬 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There do not appear to be sources (independent, secondary, non-trivial) that would establish notability. Yilloslime (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an ATD, possible redirect to European Union Training Mission in Mali, which included deployment of the Irish Army. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that redirect; not opposed to keep, though, given existing coverage on the news about this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relations are more broad than the European Union Training Mission in Mali, so oppose redirect. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Keep, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which third party coverage meets GNG for this subject? LibStar (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Irish Regiment 'on standby' for Mali mission BBC (4 February 2013), What are Ireland's Army Ranger Wing doing in Mali? RTE (25 February 2020), Ireland will continue on controversial Mali mission but with reduced troop commitment (Irish Times 22 November 2022), Wagner Group disinformation endangering Irish troops in Mali, researchers warn (Irish Times 12 July 2023). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further sourcing from last decade: "Questions to answer over Irish army involvement in Mali (Gript) 25 April 2022; Is Ireland Neutral in Mali? (The Phoenix) 10 February 2022; A Critique on Sending Irish Defence Forces to Mali (PANA) 14 January 2019; Irish troops to aid Mali regime despite ‘atrocity’ reports on all sides 14 February 2013. FWIW I realise Gript and Anphoblact are characterised as generally unreliable, however, I've cited them more to highlight the fact that the Irish mission in Mali has generated national political debate (which the PANA and Phoenix sources highlight as well). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, you've tracked down all of these sources but you haven't stated what outcome you are supporting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz - thanks for the ping. I'd originally suggested redirecting to European Union Training Mission in Mali. I'm still open to that - but I was actually hoping to hear back from @LibStar who'd made the nomination and asked questions about sourcing, but not responded to what has been presented so far. Also, looking back at their comment: "relations are more broad than the European Union Training Mission in Mali, so oppose redirect." - which is not clear to me; if the sources at this point show that relations are essentially only related to the deployment, how can it be "more"? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those bilateral relations articles that have been redirected are linked to Foreign relations of X article. So redirecting to EU Training Mission article seems to be an exception rather than the norm. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have an opinion on the sourcing I've cited? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should be added to European Union Training Mission in Mali. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to European Union Training Mission in Mali: is a very reasonable ATD per Goldsztajn. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Sunbury earthquake

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

While it was the strongest in the immediate area within the last 120 years, it had limited effects like buckled roads and cracked plaster, so I think this one probably fails WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Australia. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:N(EQ) states that notable earthquakes should garner significant media coverage, which this one did (even non-Australian media outlets such as CNN reported on it) and it was mentioned in news reports into 2024 (see here). WP:N(EQ) also states, however, that shaking of intensity VII or greater is generally necessary for notability, which this earthquake did not reach, although in my view notability should not be defined by the magnitude or intensity. Personally, I would keep this article, but I would understand totally if it is deleted. Redtree21 (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Minor jolt, startled a lot of people but nothing beyond. Effects are also too small for inclusion into the 2023 earthquakes list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same reason as User:Dora the Axe-plorer. Quake1234 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also fails WP:EVENT. Coverage only at the time of event and not lasting. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz)

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

No reason this street is notable, only coverage is routine sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. I'm only seeing routine coverage, and no in-depth coverage. Not sure if this is going to have any lasting effect or receive any more coverage than what's already there. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that the title of this article is misleading. It should have been named somthing like 2024 Khanyar/Srinagar gunfight/encounter, given it was not an attack. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird International

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO and fails to meet WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources to the article, from 24.hu, index.hu, hvg.hu and others, please check. I am not an experienced at editing wikipedia, please guide how to improve the article so it meets WP:NCORP nad WP:NOTPROMO. Thanks! Nosret Hocane (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:PROMO. A search in google news did not yield anything significant. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, what about sources added to the article since its nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hungarian so hard for me to assess. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janmat

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

Doesn't qualify for WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Has received very basic routine coverage which amounts it "this also exists". It is an alliance of minor parties without representation in any state legislature or national parliament, more than half of them don't even have their own articles. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Jharkhand. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond V-Eight

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

Can't find any independent sources about this article - Jjpachano (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 10 November 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 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World's Worst Boardgame

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. No secondary reliable sources, secondary sources seem to be YT WP:USERG. A quick WP:BEFORE on Google doesn't show any media articles of note. Some unsourced statements. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-ish: I have rewritten the article, which I found a bit disjointed, and found another source which seems to have an independent editorial stance. I would fall on the side of a "week Keep" for the article. If another independent source could be found, I would upgrade to a strong Keep. Guinness323 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for updating - with all respect, stuff like GotGameTesters and anything on BoardGameGeek would seem to be WP:USERG? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dicebreaker is the only reliable source but the article is not significant coverage, there's only a short paragraph talking about World's Worst Boardgame. --Mika1h (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Clearwater Bay Road

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

I proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the

type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. "清水灣道8號擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.
  The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."
  The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."
2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).
  The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"
  From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."
3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.
  The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"
  From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."
4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.
  The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."
5. "彩虹站新貴清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.
  The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"
  From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah Keep the article Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Upon extending the article by adding links to reliable secondary sources represented by notable publications such as Sing Tao Daily, Sharp Daily and Hong Kong Economic Times that provide significant, in-depth and continued coverage, Cunard (talk) proved and sustained WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Helped with WP:PRESERVE in the process. The article should be WP:SALTed in order to be protected against future nominations.

JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what salting means. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it looks like well written. The user already create many new wiki articles with reliable sources. Dasomm (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just spend Election Day working in the Knickerbocker Plaza, a building almost exactly the same size as this: 40 stories, 400 apartments. In a large city like New York or Hong Kong, there are literally hundreds of such buildings. There is always going to be excited local coverage about a new development, often egged on by developers themselves. We are not a directory of the 156 tallest buildings in every city in the world. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are "hundreds of such buildings" with proper identity and distinctive. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be brought up as an argument of deletion in this case. The sources cited in the article sustain WP:NEXIST with a neutral point of view. And I doubt Hong Kong Economic Times is "egged" by developers. JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article which states e.g. "I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used." hardly comes across as neutral, factual reporting... Fram (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publications often paraphrase information received from sources of interest (WP:LOCAL in this case). Some of them might indeed be written on a tone inadequate for mainspace articles. However, Cunard has only selected factual information denoting technical details, parties directly implied into the construction process and economic indicators. JeyReydar97 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not seriously calling this significant, independent coverage, are we? This is WP:ROUTINE stuff, sales announcements, and a database page. -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage is not a disqualification for notability JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i still don't see a clear consensus to keep or delete (non-admin comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About as an average of a condo tower as you can get. This gets deleted 9/10 times in any other town as we've done many other times before, and some of the keeps are also forgetting outright that some of the residents don't want a Wikipedia article about their building no matter how many times the local real estate media hype it up. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the coverage found by Cunard looks a lot, it's rather WP:ROUTINE, e.g. "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch". For this reason, I don't think this is notable. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm honestly waffling between weak keep and weak delete here, as the building has been discussed in at least one English-language Hong Kong architectural book (Xue 2016), in part because it's built on top of a transit station and for being a "pencil tower." I don't really mind if this is deleted, as the articles that have been found appear to be transactional real estate articles, and I'm not sure notability is guaranteed here just because it's been in one architectural book. I think my position is that we haven't entirely demonstrated notability, but we might be a source away. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book added by Underwaterbuffalo is the one I found, but the scholarly article is just two listing in two tables. It is helpful, but it doesn't push this into a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building has been described and used as an example in at least one book and one scholarly article. I have added the references in the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Views on genital modification

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

POV-fork (or something fork) of Genital modification and mutilation. We don't need a "views of $X" article for every article on $X, and per WP:NOPAGE such material is consolidated in single coherent places. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Sexuality and gender. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a necessary fork of genital modification and mutilation. We don't need a "views of X" for every article on a subject matter. In this case, however, it comprised a majority of the article. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Genital modification and mutilation: Already has section that starts the article. Adding this information does not make Genital modification and mutilation to long. Demt1298 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think merge is appropriate as the first edit suggests this page came from that one in the first place. Thus there is nothing to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page is an undiscussed split of Genital modification and mutilation. The creator has attempted to cut information from that page and to copy it to this one. There is no WP:PAGESIZE justification for such a split. The controversial nature of the subject is likely to make this an unintended WP:POVFORK. Per WP:NOPAGE and per nom., this split should be reverted at both ends. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and restore content at the original article from which this was taken from. This was an undiscussed an unnecessary split. The page basically appears to be an arbitrary WP:POVFORK along the lines of WP:CRITS. Looks like it can probably be closed speedily per WP:SNOW clause. Raladic (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dale

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Marland

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Moss (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Sagantoro

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

WP:BLP of a film producer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for film producers. As always, producers are not "inherently" notable just because their films exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this just states that he exists without stating any discernible notability claim over and above existing, and cites only directory entries for "referencing" rather than anything that would get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Indonesia. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krsy Fox

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had acting roles to list -- even if you're shooting for NACTOR #1, "has had significant roles in multiple notable films", that still has to be supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them and their careers in reliable sources, and is not passed just by listing roles per se. But this article is referenced entirely to IMDb and Q&A interviews in which she and her husband are talking about themselves in the first person, which are not notability-building sources.
Simply existing as a working actor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a performer from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead roles in notable productions have her meet WP:NACTOR. Coverage includes things more or less focusing on her but allowing to verify the significance of the roles without any possible doubt for example: https://collider.com/dark-corners-trailer-kate-siegel-krsy-fox/ ; https://deadline.com/2024/06/brandon-scott-krsy-fox-topline-slasher-big-baby-spider-one-1235982810/ ; https://www.joblo.com/big-baby-spider-one/ https://collider.com/little-bites-review/ and indeed a LOT of interviews ; a redirect to Spider One could also be considered. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Little Bites, Bury the Bride and Allegoria, verified by sources listed above. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kuria

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Kenyan businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO None of the coverage is WP:SIGCOV of him, it's all focused on the companies he works for or on his father, from whom notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. The last AfD resulted in draftification at the request of the page creator, but the article was returned by its creator to mainspace with no improvements, so I would not support that alternative again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kenya. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store

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

This is a highly WP:PROMO article about a local pot shop. While the paid editor is to be commended for using AfC for this article, it still fails WP:NCORP for failure to meet WP:ORGCRIT with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I've included an assessment table below. There's a single source (a design blog) that probably qualifies; nothing else meets all the required criteria.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
https://thevillagesun.com/what-a-trip-union-square-travel-agency-cannabis-store-blends-quality-variety-and-education	The only people quoted in the article are employees of the subject.
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/24/02/37131528/just-one-weed-dispensary-in-new-york-generated-5m-in-tax-revenue-in-its-first-year-and-created-1			Routine coverage of financial results is WP:ORGTRIV.
https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/cannabis-store		Appears to be 100% AI-generated promotion
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-downtown-brooklyn-union-square-cannabis-store-rebrand/	Promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/new-york/news/15687880/union-square-travel-agency-a-cannabis-store-opens-as-new-yorks-third-manhattan-based-adult-use-dispensary-the-starting-line	Cannabis Business Times is a WP:TRADES publication.		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2023/02/14/city-s-third-legal-cannabis-dispensary-opens-near-union-square			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.greenmarketreport.com/new-yorks-travel-agency-to-open-brooklyn-cannabis-store-under-licensing-deal/	Green Market Report is a WP:TRADES publication.		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://design-milk.com/union-square-travel-agency-flies-high-evoking-eero-saarinens-twa-flight-center/
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/24/05/38656031/new-yorks-the-travel-agency-opens-third-cannabis-shop-this-time-near-rockefeller-central-grand-c			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.brooklynpaper.com/the-travel-agency-dispensary-downtown-bk/			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-fifth-avenue-opening/			Dead link, not archived.
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-union-square-first-anniversary-consumer-insights-amy-sedaris/	Highly promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject	Content is not bylined; author is "Honeysuckle Team."
https://web.archive.org/web/20241109054547/https://musebyclios.com/cannabis/travel-agency-becomes-new-york-film-festivals-first-cannabis-sponsor			Dead link	A list of awards at the award sponsor page is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/you-can-now-buy-cannabis-at-nycs-weed-museumyou-just-cant-use-it-there-102523			WP:TRIVIALMENTION in context of coverage of other topic.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for your review. I’d like to address the concerns raised about notability and sourcing and provide additional context to support the article’s inclusion.
I understand that some sources may be viewed as routine or promotional. However, publications like *Cannabis Business Times* and *The Villager* provide relevant and independent coverage. Since legal cannabis is a new and heavily regulated field, mainstream media coverage is understandably limited, but these industry-specific sources highlight the subject’s importance within its niche.
The article also highlights milestones that go beyond routine business activities, such as being one of the first dispensaries to open after legalization, positioning the company as an early contributor to New York’s cannabis market. Its rebranding reflects growth and commitment to expansion, while its partnership with The Doe Fund, including hiring program graduates, addresses equity issues tied to past drug policies. These achievements illustrate the company’s broader impact on the industry and community.
If the consensus is that the article needs further work, I’d request it be moved to Draft Space for improvement as additional independent coverage becomes available. I appreciate your time and welcome any feedback on strengthening the article. Stephvrona (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deeplink (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for promotional content since October 2014, and subjectivity since February 2015, the organisation has failed WP:NCORP as presented here and has been discussed twice before at AfD, with reasonably sparse participation. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Software, and New York. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shradha Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NBIO, most of the references are extremely poor or straight up paid articles about her company. [2][3] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Lullipedia (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahiba Bali

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

There is no lead role of her as an actor. Fails WP:NACTOR Lordofhunter (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record WP:NACTOR is not about lead roles only, but significant roles. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, all coverage is in poor WP: NEWSORGINDIA sources which cannot be used to establish notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority of the references focus on viral moments or provide limited career context, rather than in-depth discussions of the subject's career and achievements. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

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

Fails WP:NBIO - political appointment with no notable history. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bahrain. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 17:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan de Vreede

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are primary. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 10 November 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.

Derk Telnekes

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of the article as the subject has received coverage from secondary sources, among them his defeat to McGeeney in the Lakeside World Championship being covered by Sky Sports. JamesVilla44 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JamesVilla44, please bring some of these sources into the discussion so that they can be assessed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 2 and 3 are simply match reports where this person is mentioned. There are no stories about the individual; I can't find any and what's used in the article isn't extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the interviews don’t count as stories about the individual then JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search in google news only found coverage in darts-related media. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does feel like the deletions are just going to become a runaway train at this rate. JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Motta

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

Article does not currently meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone biography. The references provided are primarily primary sources (club websites, match reports, and statistics), which are not sufficient to demonstrate the player's notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The player actually plays football matches every week, and it's a pretty good chance more sources will turn up in the next 6-7 months, unless the sources are unearthed already. Geschichte (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 16:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify – I found an article in the Brazilian media covering his good time in Bulgaria [4], as well as coverage from major portals about his previous transfers [5], [6]. As Geschichte commented, in a short time WP:GNG should be uncontested. Svartner (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this article. I want to clarify that I have never touched it or asked anyone to edit it on my behalf. It is based on a page from a wiki for Shimer College, which was created without my knowledge or input, by an alum I have never met, who has no apparent familiarity with my writing. I agree that it is of very low quality, and if the community decides to delete it, I will understand. Adam Kotsko (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Theory and Event" and "Philosophy in Review" citations above are critical reviews of his book. The rest is gravy. We have enough to pass author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have paged through all of the umpty-dozen revisions in the article history since the last AfD was closed in 2017. It does not appear that a cleanup tag (other than a sentence-level tag) was placed on the article at any point during that time. Even supposing that AfD was an appropriate way to address article quality issues (it isn't, not at all), if that's the actual concern then it's a little weird to go directly to AfD (again) without even asking for cleanup.
FWIW I do agree that the article has a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue in its current state. That would seem best addressed through expansion -- but BLP is a serious matter and I am unlikely to be a participant in that work, so although I stand by the remainder of my comment I have stricken my "keep" above. -- Visviva (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection: draftify. Although there doesn't seem to be any serious question of article-worthiness, a BLPSELFPUB violation should not just hang out indefinitely in mainspace. The necessary expansion work can be done just as well in draftspace, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No dispute that he passes NAUTHOR, draftification is pointless for any article that isn’t new. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say draftify. The article has potential, but leaving it out there the way it is now reflects poorly on the subject and Wikipedia. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have a WP:AUTHOR pass by way of multiple reviews of multiple books. I have trimmed the article into a more acceptable state. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Riečičiar

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

Appears to have had a 33-day professional football career, playing 6 games in the Slovak top league in July-August 2010. No indication of significant coverage then or since. C 679 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. C 679 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in <15 articles on Google News. Less than 70 search results on Google Search. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweta Singh

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

Fails WP:NBIO, all coverage is sourced to WP:NEWSORGINDIA , the wire source only makes a passing mention of her that too for making false claims [7] - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page was created by a sock account and has been around since 2013 with almost no reliable sources. It doesn’t meet the WP:NBIO, as the nominator pointed out. But, also it fails WP:ANYBIO. Charlie (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in third party sources. Orientls (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: wide coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lullipedia (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Tripathi

AfDs for this article:

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

Among the Godi media anchors who get routine coverage for spreading disinformation but they are overall not notable. Totally fails WP:NBIO. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. I am also unconvinced by the last AfD. CharlesWain (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ANYBIO. Sources indicate persistent reliability issues. Charlie (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many of the news sources have in-depth mention of her rather than only passing mention and the subject seem to qualify WP:GNG. Also, last Afd attempt failed.Adamantine123 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what are those sources that establish WP:GNG? The last afd was not valid because there was no rationale at all, therefore it's pointless to bring it up. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Fulton (English cricketer)

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

Non notable by the look of it. Amateur University cricketer is no longer deemed notable by default and sourcing is a cricket database and school website. Neither meet the current standards for inclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sample of mentions in The Times (there are more)- via Wikipedia Library including:

Cox, Rupert (18 April 1998). "Students grant initiative to White". The Times. No. 66179. p. 34. - Mentions Fulton as Captain of team and mentions possibly poor decision to insert opposition.

Bailey, Jack (17 April 1997). "Fulton and Scrini stage rescue mission". The Times. No. 65866. p. 56.

Bailey, Jack (18 April 1997). "Students sent down with all guns blazing". The Times. No. 65867. p. 45.
Thicknesse, John (10 May 1997). "Oxford let down by batting frailties". The Times. No. 65886. p. 47.

presumably other British Broadsheets (i.e. Telegraph and Guardian) will also have similar.

Also mentioned in Wisdens for 1998 and 1999 (1998 "James Fulton...made polished first class fifties" and that captaincy handed over to him for 1998) together with match reports.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added a few more details and sources to the article - It should be noted that he was captain for a season, which does raise his importance a little.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A fairly substantial first-class career, covered by reliable sources. AA (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Babyak

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

His professional career lasted only 50 mins and I can't find any suggestion of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC. The best source that I can find is Bibrka Gov, a local source that mentions him a few times in a match report. Match reports aren't generally seen as significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Match reports aren't generally seen as significant coverage. As long as the news article focuses on a specific footballer and describes them in signficant detail, that might be fine in my opinion. I can say such an example is this one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work? [8] Ceriy (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so, but only one source is not sufficient. It also looks like a blogspot to me... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is written in prose, most of the content is just regurgitating basic stats about the player (e.g. date of debut, number of appearances) so I would say it's fairly light coverage. As Clara says above, this is only one source and multiple sources are usually preferred. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a routine transactional announcement and so fails GNG, and furthermore is straight from the governing football federation so is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources of IRS SIGCOV identified. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avrum Rosensweig

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

This biography is almost entirely self-sourced (or using a congregational bulletin as a source), citing blog entries or pages from his or his organization's websites or summarising the subject's opinions as published in op-ed pieces written by him. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having surfed through the sources here, I find the nom is bang on the money. Sourcing is indeed scanty and all roads lead back to Avrum Rosensweig. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no coverage to be found of this person in .ca websites, other than social media and primary sources. This appears to be PROMO, a rather long-winded, wordy article that doesn't have much sourcing that isn't connected to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am familiar with this person's name in Canada, specifically through knowledge of the NGO he founded. That and some other elements on the page fall under encyclopedic content. I have not contributed to that many pages, but I would like to spend a week or two cleaning this page up/re-sourcing to save this page from deletion if possible. Colinwhite613 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this page should be deleted, but I do agree that some things should be better sourced.

Avrum Rosensweig has literally changed the landscape of Canadian Jewish philanthropy by founding Ve’ahavta, Canada’s only Jewish rooted, humanitarian organization, in the country.

Over the years, the organization has helped tens of thousands of people on the streets of Toronto, as well as in countries like Guyana and Zimbabwe.

(See: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Michael_Seth_Silverman, where work done by Dr. Michael Silverman on Ve’ahavta sponsored trips has saved literally thousands of lives.)

While Rosensweig retired years ago, and is no longer involved in the organization, Ve’ahavta continues to thrive as Canada’ s only Jewish humanitarian organization, living up to the universal ideals and values that he began the organization with.

So again, I think that the sources could be improved, but the page should certainly stay. Uiaeli (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Shostka

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

This article may look well sourced at first glance but, in actual fact, it's just a WP:REFBOMB of database sources, none of which confer any notability per WP:SPORTBASIC. His 8 matches in the third tier of Ukraine might provide a very weak presumption of notability but, ultimately, Shostka needs to have significant coverage from independent sources to have an article. Looking at Ukrainian Wikipedia and online, the best that I can find are Desna 1 and Desna 2, both of which are published by his then-employer so are neither independent nor reliable (see WP:RS and WP:IS). Please delete unless independent and significant coverage can be found for Shostka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No significant success in the sport, less than 10 professional matches at present. Less than 50 Google Search results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravko Dermenov

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

Dermenov has had an unremarkable career to date and the article is currently nothing more than a stats stub. Blitz was the best source in my searches but it's only a match report for a match in which he received a red card. Other sources like Novsport and Gong are only trivial mentions. No indication of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More so an unremarkable, he barely had any career at all. Geschichte (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Peters

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unlike the many other darts players that came here because of mass-rejected prods, this person actually has news articles about him and not just a place in stats databases like the others. [9] [10]. I'll comment back with a !vote once I finish my WP:BEFORE. Molecular Pilot 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just routine reporting of him getting a tour card. 20-30 players do this annually. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search in google news found 2 relevant sources but they are from darts related media. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Biemans

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as again, after doing a WP:BEFORE (voting), all I can find him in are darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing, fixture) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. I would suggest all these darts articles be prod'ed but someone's been undoing all User:ItsKesha's prods with the same edit summary accusing them of not having done a WP:BEFORE and wanting to take it to AfD, so here we are I guess. I'll try to WP:BEFORE and !vote on as many as I can find time to. Molecular Pilot 06:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all of the google news hits are from darts-related media. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Federico

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BEFORE (voting) search only revealed automated databases (that list most semi-professional darts players) that don't meet WP:SIGCOV - mainly with limited biographical info like name, age, matches played - see [11], [12], [13] etc. No news or other coverage thus doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT per "if they have SIGCOV, i.e. multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable (these have no evidence of editorial checking). Molecular Pilot 08:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. MolecularPilot's search demonstrates a lack of coverage for this person. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Watton

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SPORTCRIT per nom. Literally the only things I can find about him are database entries with "he played in (and most of the time lost) these matches" and limited biographical information like name, age etc. [14], [15]. No news or WP:SIGCOV whatsoever - no human besides the creator of the article has written something about him. Molecular Pilot 09:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone with a BNA subscription check this and this which appear to have him in the title? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on 1 source. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 10 November 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 13:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Landers (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:15, 11 November 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.

Robbie Widdows

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the types of sources like the one cited in the article, nothing comes up to establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage, although none of it is spectacular: Hartfield Gazette, Western Daily Press, Ealing & Action Gazette, Ruislip and Northwood Gazette. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIST (satellite)

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

Single cubesat project of which i could find only a single news article and a few blog posts outside of the project itself Firestar587 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a few articles as well: [16], [17], [18], [19]. The DN article is a bit below SIGCOV level of the project but together I think it meets WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with KTH Royal Institute of Technology It's a student cubesat project and not inherently notable. The coverage presented is not getting it over WP:GNG for me in any case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Drummond

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet criteria for WP:Author. Has been deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Drummond). Dajasj (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NAUTHOR would be met by reviews in notable publications; I can find no reviews at all of his work outside user-generated sites like Goodreads. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing about this author found, nor is what's used in the article of any help. I don't find critical reviews of his works; there's an art professor with the same name that pops up, does not appear to be this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while he’s certainly up and coming as a novelist, it’s perhaps too soon. This page is poorly written. I don’t see a large fan base on social media. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Guna

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

Badly sourced BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC. The best source found in my search was Soccernet, which is just a squad list mention. I have searched under "Aldo Guna" and "Erald Guna". Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom - cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GNG-- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Khateeb

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

Fails WP:BIO, has no notable achievements under WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, only two sources and both are deadlinks. MSportWiki (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Lebanon, and United Kingdom. MSportWiki (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, clearly and signally fails WP:GNG, Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Magadha

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Unnecessary," "not big enough to have a separate list," or "looks like Original Synthesis"? Under what context are you nominating and proposing a discussion for this article? It seems like the nomination is based on your personal viewpoint rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to provide sufficient evidence to justify taking an article to deletion discussion. Personal opinions should not be the basis for judging an article; any proposal for deletion must be grounded in WP:DEL. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India original synthesis is a part of WP guidelines read guidelines correctly first. Edasf (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short List of Wars involving India quite enough by going this we need to create a dozen articles like this. Edasf (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe step back a little bit now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references offer substantial and reliable academic coverage of Magadha’s historical conflicts, indicating the wars' historical significance. Passes WP:SAL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion Edasf (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because List of wars involving India is enough. Orientls (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also fails WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST possible conflict of interest too, with editor saying they "do advocacy work for indie authors and creative commons artists" Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally on fail of WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST (self published content and all) and also on potential of COI. Also now have Kneecap's 'Fine Art' back in my head. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI issues in my longer comment below. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [20], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.

I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.

Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.

1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.

2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.

3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."

4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.

Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.

That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.

One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).

I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?

Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.

By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [21]

These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Temples In America

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

Non-notable book. No independent reliable sources present, and none were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete three Google search results of which two are Wikipedia - so also remove from 'Further reading' at Comparison of temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of temples in the United States (LDS Church) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book is published by Cedar Fort, Inc.. a notable publishing company.Msruzicka (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article about St. George Utah Temple under the picture state temple was announced 31 january 1871. A book abouut mormon temples called Mormon Temples In America says November 9 1871. The book is not an official book from the LDS but neither is the website where you got this iinforation in the article. Msruzicka (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a coffee table book. It has one possibly qualifying review but there is no evidence of more qualifying coverage that would enable it to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. As for the argument above about its publisher, this book cannot WP:INHERIT notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the official LDS website corresponds perfectly with whats in the book Mormon Temples In America that the St. George Utah Temple temple was announced November 9 1871. Not whats written in the wikipedia article which says 31 January 1871.Msruzicka (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an error in an article, fix it. I don't see how creating a new article is needed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another interesting point almost all the Mormon Temple articles uses a website that is not connected to the LDS chuch in any way. And at times information from that site does not correspond with the official LDS site.Msruzicka (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A website that is featured on all temple articles is https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/st.-george-utah-temple/ This site clearly states it is not an official site of the LDS church. why is it featured on all temple articles then?Msruzicka (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the result of incompetent and/or uninformed editing. Summary description of community consensus for ChurchOfJesusChristTemples.org at WP:LDS/RS is as follows:
The ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org is a self-published source and is not an official website of the LDS Church. It therefore does not qualify as a reliable source nor meets the special case usage for self-published sources.
Left guide (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's one review of unclear independence and everything else is user-generated, self-published, and/or not about this book. At best being extremely generous for the sake of argument, there's only up to one qualifying source, and that's simply not enough to show notability here. Left guide (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This book is just not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There are plenty of books that never make it here because they are just normal books. Glennfcowan (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm removing the Goodreads mention - these are user generated reviews - I've given an explanation of this in some of the related AfDs. I've also removed the link to Altus Fine Art. That isn't a review of the book, as it's a general comment about the artist. It's also not independent enough to be considered something that could give notability for the artist, as it's a promotional blurb meant to encourage people to buy from the website. They aren't going to say negative things about someone whose work they're hoping to profit from. If they were an extremely notable art gallery or a museum this would be debatable, but they're not.

Now as far as the Boyack part goes, that's a book jacket blurb (BJB). BJBs are short quotes that are written to promote and sell a book. These people are approached by the publisher or author and asked to make a short 1-2 sentence statement about the book. It's not in-depth and it's specifically written to be promotional copy, so it's not considered to be a review. Some publishers even re-use the same blurbs over and over again on other books by the same author, sometimes even years down the line. While sure, this is the author's only book, the fact remains that BJBs aren't usable to establish notability because of their very nature. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source out there seems to be the Deseret News review. I'm willing to see that as usable because well, there are a lot of LDS members out there and the paper isn't going to review everything released by one of their members. It wouldn't be the strongest possible source, but I would be willing to see it as usable. In any case, that's kind of a moot point since this is only one source and that's not enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serxhio Emini

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

Played 32 minutes in Albania’s highest league, continuing in the semi-pro second tier. The source currently cited in the article is very short and far from significant. Neither is this. [ https://www.panorama.com.al/sport/serxho-emini-me-bylisin-do-te-shkelqej-edhe-ne-superiore/ This] is 2/3 quotes from Emini, so doesn’t pass muster either. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Latham

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

His soccer career was not notable at all, having only played 172 minutes in Revolution, as well as a friendly goal that can't be the basis of a Wikipedia article. I don't think the local news source cuts it GNG-wise, as it is an everyday piece of coverage with the majority being a Q&A interview. It would take much more making this meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to All-time New England Revolution roster as possible search term. Giant Snowman 10:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Shukuup

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

Potential hoax. No web search hits and all sources are translated from ru Wikipedia article. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I converted most of the sources to use our {{cite}} templates. I did a search as well, and the only reference I'm able to find is Triplook which Copan is the city of the Maya located in the western part of the country near Guatemala. It is the largest monument of ancient civilizations on the territory of Honduras. Copan was founded in the I century A.D. In the 7th and 8th centuries, it was the center of the ancient Mayan Kingdom Shukuup - I'm not convinced by this source, as Copán is a Good Article and doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Also, none of the English Language links in the footer mention the kingdom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 08:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sweet. The #1 search result for "Kingdom of Shukuup" is this AfD. Which I think is sort of 'nuff said, really... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Matyukhin

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

Poorly sourced article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all notability guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston United Soccer Association

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Johnston United Soccer Association

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

I am requesting this page to be deleted. I have been doing lots of research, it is almost impossible to find reliable or unreliable sources on this topic. It is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia If you found more sources verifying this article's content, please cite them, and we can consider removing this deletion notice. Mangoflies (talk) 01:25, 10 November 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 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment Keep This is a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page. By WP:WHYN "the general notability criteria [...] do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists)". It has a navigational purpose so verification of each entry is not required. Please constrain deletion nominations.Thincat (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Thincat (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed this nomination to reflect that Johnston United Soccer Association, not the Johnston disambiguation page, is what was nominated for deletion. (Thincat's "keep" was based on the erroneous version of the nom and should not be considered in regard to the actually-nominated article.) No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Falls under What Wikipedia is not. Fails to show WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bejeweled Stars

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

I don't see any indication that this is notable. I went BEFORE but found no reviews at all, except this [22] [23] [24] but its not enough. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2nd & 3rd sources presented by nominator are reviews from VGRS, here is a third one which is enough for WP:GNG Jumpytoo Talk 06:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not my area, but that's three reviews right there, so we're at WP:GNG, lah? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the third discovered review, it's safe to say GNG is passed here, if very narrowly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage shown above combined with this source from GeekWire. Couldn't find any discussion or acknowledgment of that outlet anywhere in the video games project, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#GeekWire seems to indicate that it's reliable. There's also seven sentences of continuous coverage for this game in p. 146–7 of this book by MIT Press, and WP:OR#Reliable sources affirms that books published by university presses are in the top class of source reliability. Left guide (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's also a review by Macworld: [25]. --Mika1h (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 17:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Clark (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can only find him in darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. Molecular Pilot 06:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article had been PROD'd and de-PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real achievements, only coverage available is 1, 2 from Fife Today and Darts News covering him signing with Unicorn, which isn't enough alone to define notability. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:29, 10 November 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. Deletion nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bojong Kokosan

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

Entirely unsourced, WP:BEFORE search shows little to nothing, and the AfC is also unsourced but with more context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Indonesia, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it's very much stub-class at the moment, during my WP:BEFORE (voting) search I found this reference from the Indonesian Government Ministry of Education and Culture - [26] - that supports everything said in the article and more and is almost the most WP:RS source possible. As well as a news article from an Indonesian news website [27] and from a popular Indonesian online magazine about history [28] that's notable enough to have it's own id.wiki article [29]. Molecular Pilot 06:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also another Indonesian news website with very clear editorial team and oversight (see the bottom of the article and also about pages) thus throughly meeting WP:NEWSORG, With all these sources talking about it extensively with whole, really long articles, and they all seem reliable (especially then government website), I strongly feel that this article meets WP:GNG. Note that I've added the government source as a reference in the article now. Molecular Pilot 06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to link this "other" website! Sorry! https://tirto.id/sejarah-pertempuran-bojong-kokosan-penyebab-kronologi-dan-dampak-giPK Molecular Pilot 07:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MolecularPilot's work. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:I dream of horses, this article has been extensively edited since its nomination. Does this change your position?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz It does. I withdraw my nomination. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reworked the lede paragraph significantly. I may consider creating a draft copy of this in my sandbox and working on it in my spare time, because it genuinely does seem to have some merit to it. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirocco745 Maybe wait until after the AfD closes for the draftification. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:31, 10 November 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.

Red Hood

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

I feel this is a tough AFD to navigate given the murkyness of comics (because comics are comics) the page fails WP:GNG. While Jason Todd is notable, and The Joker are notable, the "Red Hood" isnt. Most coverage of "Red Hood" is either coverage of Jason or the Joker or the Red Hood Gang, not Red Hood. The idea of Red Hood as a Legacy hero isn't really a thing in comics the way Robin or Batgirl is. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? The page clearly has some use. IMHO you could make fairly decent cases for a redirect to Jason Hood or the Joker (is that confirmed in whatever iteration of DC 'continuity' we're on this week? That he was the only version of the dome-head Red Hood?), so the most sensible thing would be a disambiguation-type page that swiftly explains the gist and links to the various appropriate pages. Outright deletion seems just about the worst option, so I'm voting Keep and make more useful through editing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:SIGCOV here, here, as well as in the Batman: A Visual History I can't access. While I can't be totally certain, I think Red Hood is probably notable and enough WP:BEFORE has not been performed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Comics Encyclopedia source is just a plot summary of his role, and I wouldn't really consider it SIGCOV per Wikipedia:NOTPLOT. The IGN source is similarly just a plot summary of Red Hood's past appearances, and is additionally only talking about Jason Todd's version of the alias, which does not address the nom's concerns of being separately notable from Todd.

As an aside, how can you be sure the Visual History contains SIGCOV if you can't access it? Mostly just asking out of curiosity more than anything, because at a glance the guide itself seems akin to Comics Encyclopedia in terms of its coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries are transformative, and hence valid secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Jclemens. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid the use of plot summaries, only establishes the article must have some indication of its external importance and significance, somewhere.

And as I said, I cannot be sure if there is SIGCOV in Visual History, but it's easier to keep and confirm later than to delete and regret it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not forbid the use of plot summaries, but I cite NOTPLOT for a reason. An article needs something beyond plot. Per the policy, works must be discussed "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those work." So far there haven't been any sources actually demonstrating this, and any that do are focused entirely on the character of Todd, not the alias of Red Hood. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out my original opinion, and change it to redirect since it is nearly synonymous with Jason Todd at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not clear what's being asked here. Do you want this turned into a disambiguation page? Clearly, something should exist at Red Hood. Obviously, you would prefer it be different than it is now, but what is your end goal and what are the policies and guidelines that justify it? Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Jason Todd with a hatnote for Joker. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you asked for deletion if you feel it should be a redirect? Have you tried to reach a consensus in the talk page of the article or an associated project page before nominating the article for deletion? Sorry, but this seems like a misuse of the AfD process to achieve something that could be done by normal editing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jason Todd per nom. All coverage indicates that Red Hood is basically only known for the association the alias has to Todd, and a hatnote can point to Joker for his usage of the alias. The lack of actual sourcing for Red Hood surprises me; if anything comes up, let me know, but as it stands, the coverage is so little that I don't see a need to merge anything to Todd, when all of Todd's plot information covers the necessary Red Hood bits adequately as is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No action Let a talk page discussion ensue. Nothing is so broken about this process that anything needs to be deleted, non-XfD processes have not been tried, and there's no indication that anything needs to be enforced with administrative tools. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already at AfD, why rehash the same conversation at the talk page; the nom should have started a conversation on the talk page, but this has already been made. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Shouldn't need admin intervention unless admin intervention is needed.

2) Shouldn't be mandated unless consensus has failed.

Two different sides of an issue, but WP:PEREN#Rename AFD indicates the community has rejected AfD as a venue for all discussions. If no deletion is argued, then it's actually a speedy keep criteria. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge Redirect to Jason Todd and maybe add info about why he took up the Red Hood moniker. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. Red Hood was first used as an alias by the person who later became Joker. Then a gang was named after him in "The New 52". If the outcome is merge, I prefer having Red Hood merged to List of DC Comics characters: R and Red Hood Gang redirected to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Plus, @Jclemens: is right about the fact that this should've been brought up as a talk page discussion first. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Todd per Pokelego999 and others and due to insufficient coverage of this topic in particular, for a standalone article. Arguments about this being the wrong venue seem to thoroughly useless WP:BURO. The article is here now and there's no point dragging it out if consensus can be gotten here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Todd with a hatnote to Joker added there. While the Red Hood name was originally used by the Joker, it has, for a long time now, been associated almost entirely with Jason Todd, making him the primary topic. And I am not really seeing the logic in having information of Jason Todd as the Red Hood in a separate article from our full article on Jason Todd, which also covers him being the Red Hood. Even the sources shown above are describing the history of Jason Todd as a whole, not "The Red Hood" as a separate concept. Since the "In Other Media" section is just a shortened selection of items already present in either the Joker or Jason Todd's own "in other media" articles, the only information here that is not already fully covered on either Jason Todd or The Joker articles is the information on "The Red Hood Gang" which is simply not notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pokelego999. There isn't reliable reception and analysis for this as a separate subject, and so it can't meet WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jason Todd. Agree that there are not enough sources to establish GNG for the Red Hood as a concept. Anyone searching for the Red Hood will almost certainly mean Jason. Joker's article already includes information about how the Red Hood relates to him, and the gang is not notable. Rhino131 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Use this page for more detailed information on the Red Hood character, including the history of his being portrayed by the Joker and the rise of the Red Hood Gang. As the character is primarily known for being an alias of Jason Todd, have a shorter summary of this period in the Jason Todd article and link to this article for interested readers. 77.102.202.253 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

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

No damage, injuries, or deaths, and no lasting impact, so may fail WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Tennessee. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't cause any damage or injuries. Doesn't seem notable. Hardly any coverage other than on the day of the quake. Seems to fail WP:EVENT to me. Procyon117 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "seismic events" section of Eastern Tennessee seismic zone where the earthquake is already mentioned. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. I feel the problem of no WP:SIGCOV and failure to meet WP:GNG still exists. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clicking on the External links Sash website brings up "Bad gateway" Error code 502. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website works for me, so if it's not working for you, you can get it from Archive.org. I'll add some more links and references today. SASH is an active nonprofit working on sexual health, comparable in size and impact to https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research TheoJarek (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of sexology organizations. Demt1298 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adding a study of sexual health professionals. They included SASH, the Society for Sex Therapy and Research (SSTAR), the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA), now known as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS). Authors chose these organizations because they were notable and represented a range of professionals in sex research, education, and therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Society_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Sexuality TheoJarek (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the previous AFD closed as Delete but that is not the situation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks pretty clear based on the scholarly references/citations from Google Scholar at over 300 alone. Also over 1650 references in Books is pretty significant. Noting that the old AfD from 2015 had scant participation and one of those was a banned sock puppeteer means that that AfD should have no relevance on the situation now. Raladic (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commotion Ltd v Rutty

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

Failed a PROD per User:A._B.'s prerogative, but as far as I can find, there are still no reliable sources that talk about this case that aren't just restating the facts of the case, and while I'm no lawyer or otherwise have expertise in the matter, those sources look to be mostly regurgitating anything it can get its hands onto rather that "this case and that case are important for xyz reason". No newspapers that I can find reported on the case at the time or since. Also as an aside, the creator of the page for....some reason, decided to have a very odd and irrelevant image for the infobox, but that's fixable in the case that I've overlooked sources that establish this case's nobility. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar lists 40+ references to this decision; it set an important precedent apparently. The article does not discuss its importance. I agree that's an odd image. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added several refs to the article. Google Books shows this case is cited by a number of books. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a too-long quote. Can I snip it down? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cut down on the extraneous matters in the two long quote. I’d love for someone to add in more cases and books that cited this case. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Google Scholar citations above show many articles discussing this case or how it has been used to advance other legal issues, I think it's notable. Coverage shows it's had a lasting impact on the legal world. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Hennessy

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

unnotable actress, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO as there's no coverage of her in my search, beyond social media profiles with are UGI, this [30] which describes her as a "client" so it's not independent, inclusion in databases or other UGI like Fandom or IMDb (not reliable) and passing mentions of her in news reports about a film she was in - just saying that she was in the film & not meeting WP:SIGCOV [31]. The current references are IMDb (again, not reliable), something that doesn't even mention her [32] and a press release which can't count towards notability per WP:PRSOURCE [33]. She also doesn't meet the more specific WP:NACTOR either, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable [productions]" - having only minor roles in a single episode of notable TV shows like Father Brown and a very minor role in Johnny English Strikes Again. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LeoCAD

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

Stub, and I am not seeing sources to expand this or that would suggest this meets WP:NSOFT. The best I found that meets SIGCOV is a blog review at [34], but that's hardly reliable. Then there are some passing mentions here and there and social media... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that review. There are many others that show notability. I have updated the page a bit and will add more updates. VectorVoyager (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (listed alphabetically)

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

Seems rather excessive: there's also List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. The latter could be converted into one or two tables with sortable columns. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. A exhaustive list of fan information, all of which is unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the better approach would be to reformat the pre-existing article to allow it to be sorted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:INDISCRIMINATE to List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches, particularly due to the fact that the list mentioned above could just be table-converted to allow for the alphabetical requirement that his article imposes. Conyo14 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork / WP:OR. The list already exists and it can be improved there. I am not sure a redirect makes sense here, given the low likelihood of this as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - forks are bad because they mislead our readers and encourage opinions over reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Opperhoofden of Delagoa Bay

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

This article is a unreadable mess discussing a list of holders of an unnotable office. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Africa, and Netherlands. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a case of WP:TNT if there ever was one. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elio García-Austt

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

Fails WP:BIO - no independent, reliable source I could find in my WP:BEFORE talks about him in detail. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are plenty of independent reliable sources in GS, but I doubt of there are enough of them. Is GNG or POLITICIAN passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
He's a scientist/doctor, so I'm not sure what you are asking about WP:POLITICIAN, did you comment on the wrong AfD by mistake? In case you didn't, what do mean by "GS" - the only things that come up on Google are his own papers, not other people talking about him which is required per WP:BIO (and a lack of the special circumstances outlined at WP:ACADEMIC)? Thank you! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw that it's mentioned in the (entirely unsourced) article that he was a member of the Parliament of Uruguay - but I can't find any RS to back this up so I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is met, unless someone else can find an RS to back this (which would meet WP:POLITICIAN. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire page in wiki is based on this - https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Elio_Garc%C3%ADa-Austt.html Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike! The bottom of that page says "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Elio_García-Austt". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.", so actually that page is just a mirror site for the (completed unsourced) Wikipedia article. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Spain, Chile, and Uruguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at GS where you will find a little. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers

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

Non-notable book. All sources are links to purchase it, and I found no additional reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only additional source I found was this one. I don't think that's enough to establish notability.
Rainsage (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the star reviews are by people who read the book. The arthur Warnock seems to be a notable arthur. Book is sold at Brigham Young University book store. Warnock has won awards.checked google books searched the arthur Caleb Warnock. 16,900 results appeared.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs) Msruzicka (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews have been added.Msruzicka (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first 'review' (Utah Preppers) is a blog, not useful for establishing notability. The second is a copy of the third, an article by the Deseret News. All other sources are store pages. WP:NBOOK requires two or more independent reliable sources, which the article does not have. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Deseret News is not fully independent of the LDS church, and neither is BYU, so they can't be used to establish notability for LDS-related topics, and none of the other arguments in this discussion prove notability. Left guide (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As explained, the reviews given are not independent of the subject. I don't see any reviews (or anything) in Gscholar or Jstor, so we don't have notability for books. The author might be notable, having won awards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree about whether the review in Deseret News can be used to qualify here (I think it can, since the book's publisher is not affiliated with the LDS church), but it's just one review when multiple are needed, and the rest are not independent, secondary, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm looking over the reviews. So far here is the rundown:

BYU: This is not a review, this is a publisher's summary. Even if it wasn't, no retailer is going to tell you that one of their products is awful - they want you to buy the book. At most they might post someone else's review stating that it is bad, but they are going to be quick and clear to attribute it to that publication.
Goodreads: User submitted reviews. You can read my explanation at this AfD as to why those aren't usable or even generally considered to be pertinent to Wikipedia.
DBRL: User generated reviews, not issued by the site itself.
Self-published blog: This runs the same issue as the user submitted reviews on retail and database websites. Anyone can create a blog and post a review. These are only usable if you can prove that the site has been routinely cited as a reliable source by other independent reliable sources, particularly academic and scholarly sources.
Library site: User submitted reviews - these are actually the same reviews as posted at the DBRL, as they pull from the same database for that area.
LDS Living: At the bottom of the page it lists that it took the review from the Deseret Times, so it's a duplicate of the DT review.
Deseret Times: I'd be willing to say that this is usable. It's brief, but the paper is independent of the LDS and by extension, the author and publisher.

I've removed all of the sources but the blog post and the link to the Deseret Times. With the blog post, I suppose there's a chance that the site could be one of the rare exceptions to the blog rule - unlikely, but I'll leave it up there until someone researches that. As far as the other sources go, they were doing far more harm on the page than good. Unusable sources like those tend to make a page seem less notable rather than more, especially in the case of the sources that were accidentally misrepresented. I'm going to see if I can find any other sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lead of the page goes on and on and on about the author, but there’s only one semi-independent and somewhat reliable source … a blog and a college bookstore. Huge WP:NOTINHERITED fail. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My First Book Of Mormon Stories

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

Non-notable book. All sources are links to purchase it, and I found no additional reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good reads indicates the book has sold more than 100,000 copies. The star reviews on those web sites are by people who read the book. If you look at the article the book has a sequel by the same arthur.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msruzicka (talk • contribs) Msruzicka (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Msruzicka book sales and sequels do not contribute towards establishing notability at all. Independent reliable sources do, and the article has none. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; none of the references in the article contribute to notability since they are not independent reliable sources about the book. Rather, they are the book itself, user-submitted reviews, and merchant outlets selling the book. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. Sources are all primary or user-generated. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you suggesting if sources were computer generated that would be better than sources created by people.Msruzicka (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USERGENERATED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a bit surprised that no sources exist for this, as I remember selling more than a few copies of this back in the mid to late 2000s. However the issue here isn't whether or not this was ever popular and whether or not there have been any reviews or coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable and independent/secondary. What we need are things like reviews or articles about the book in like say, a newspaper like the Salt Lake Tribune. I checked Newspapers.com, but the only listings for this were advertisements where various stores were saying nice things about the book in order to entice customers to purchase it.

As far as the 'reviews' in the article go, none of them are usable. Here's a rundown:

BYU: This is not a review. It is a publisher's summary of the book - you can find this summary on other websites selling the book, like Amazon.
Cardston Bookshop: This is a review by a random user, not a review by the website itself.
Goodreads: All user created reviews. Not pertinent to Wikipedia.
Thrift Books: Also user created reviews, not a review by the website itself.
The Mormon Literature and Creative Arts: This is questionable as to whether or not this could be seen as a review. It's labeled as a summary, so it's possible that this was an alternative publisher's summary. Now it does show that two people reviewed it for the Association for Mormon Letters, however even if that is considered to be independent and secondary enough, the issue would be that it's one publication - we would need reviews from multiple outlets, not the same one.

Now, going back to the issue with user generated content. The issue here is that anyone can create a review on sites like Goodreads, Amazon, and so on. If any limits exist, they're usually not much of a hurdle - Amazon might only require that you buy the book, for example. That lack of a hurdle makes it kind of a given that someone will post a review about a given product. If it exists, eventually a member of the general public will give their opinion. What makes a review from a media outlet like the Salt Lake Tribune or NYT special is because they have a limited amount of space and staff time to create a review. Countless books are released in any given genre each year - there's no way that these outlets can review all of those, so they have to be extremely discerning about which ones they review. The only time user created content is considered to be noteworthy is when it gains coverage in media outlets like the NYT and such. Examples of this would be Saving Christmas and Bend, Not Break, where there were attempts to create review campaigns to sway the public user ratings.

Aside from that, the page also uses wiki entries - these should never be used as a source because they're user created. There's little to no editorial oversight and anyone can create a page. The only time wikis are sourced within an article is if they are part of the topic at hand - even then it's expected that the source will be accompanied with secondary, independent reliable sources that would justify mentioning it within the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the user reviews, this isn't meant to be a knock against people who like to review books and other media in their spare time or a knock against those websites. Shoot, I used to be an extremely active reviewer on Goodreads, IMDb, and Amazon back in the day and even ran a book blog. (Side note: someone once tried to use a review I posted on my blog in an AfD - that was a surreal moment to say the least.) It's just that these are so common and expected that they aren't considered to be discerning enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something else of note: adding a ton of unreliable sources to an article doesn't make an article look more notable. In this situation it actually runs the serious risk of undermining any attempts at retaining it. With the case of the publisher summaries misinterpreted as reviews, there's the risk of it being seen as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the sources. I don't think that this is the case here, but it's how it can come across. It's far, far better to limit it to sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable and usable to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest photographs

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

Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPROMO. Absolutiva (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the page is very well sourced and meets WP:GNG, the topic is established and valid (see its External links), and the page is well presented and offers links to some of the most extraordinary photographs. It fails nothing. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. A lot of this article comes across as original research. Most of the individual photographs are not notable on their own either. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is sourced, well-structured and I wouldn’t call this ’cruft’, given the sources provided. Meets the requirements for notability of lists. Large photographs are a very notable topic as a set: https://resources.culturalheritage.org/pmgtopics/2009-volume-thirteen/13_12_Freeman.html Also see Taylor, L. (2020). The Materiality of Exhibition Photography in the Modernist Era: Form, Content, Consequence. Taylor & Francis. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs count toward notability of the article in question? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's one element that shows the topic of this list is notable as a set. And that is the requirement for the notability of lists. Mushy Yank (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It most definitely is not. This is a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs. It does not discuss the set of such things, or attempt to classify them in any way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While there might be something to say about the topic of large photographs generally, that doesn't extend to the wanton listing of the minutiae of random large photographs. Most of this material is clearly promotional (complete with inline external links), and there's no way to verify any sort of ranking of these, other than that they're "large", generally measured only in pixels (except for the one actual large pinhole camera-generated one). The claims above of good sourcing already in the article are simply not right. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this promotional? The EL? Feel free to remove them. As for the rest, the list is far from being indiscriminate (nom's rationale; which is echoed in your !vote by "random"/"wanton") or not verifiable. What sources do you consider unreliable and which entries seem to lack sources, according to you? Mushy Yank (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the essay 'cruft' has nothing to do with policy or guidelines nor is a valid reason to delete. As to nomination language, articles do not 'fail' an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a topic being "established" also has nothing to do with policy or guidelines and is not a valid reason to keep something. Nor is having a lot of links to pretty pictures. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fact that a topic is established (as notable) has a lot to do with notability guidelines. Did anyone mention pretty pictures but you? (And on top of that, in an article about photographs access to quality images might even be considered a valid argument in favour of the existence of a list (as opposed to a category)). ("Well presented" is more about structure, content and prose than image, imv). Mushy Yank (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, my "note" above was a direct retort to Randy Kryn's utterly bafflingly nonsensical "note" immediately preceding it, in which he seems to try to argue against a poor rationale in the nomination (ignoring other parts of it). My retort was to call him out for making an even worse "keep" statement. And no, being "an established topic" doesn't even mean anything. You stealthily added "(as notable)" parenthetically, but it could just as well be established (as non-notable). And it's also not established as notable; that's what we're here to argue about. And nowhere has anyone (including you) presented even a whiff of evidence that this meets NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not exactly what I would call friendly in your mention of other users' opinions, you're aware of that, aren't you? So, you're not satisfied with the sources presented nor with those on the page, nor with the book reference above. OK. One last try. You obviously have coverage for this in the Guinness Book (just check please); please also see Panoramic and Immersive Media Studies Yearbook (2024), De Gruyter (pp 299-300); or see lists like this https://www.pcmag.com/news/10-jaw-dropping-gigapixel-photos A lead section with context and more history of the records and milestones would not hurt, though. (PS- "stealthily", really? when I'm just making the obvious, explicit; but I'll assume good faith and consider you're not playing with words.) Mushy Yank (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RSP: "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.". I have no access to the book you mention, so can't assess that one. And the PCmag article is just a listicle. Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks for ad revenue and do nothing to establish notability of a topic. The simple fact is that stuff surrounding this is inherently promotional. The most common site used (Gigapan) is a commercial site for selling merchandise and thus not independent of its subject. We also have no way of knowing if these things are truly the largest, if any comparably large ones are not listed here, etc etc. This stuff falls squarely within WP:NOT territory. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness was more for verification that the topic (not the entries) was notable (I always understood the mention of Guinness at RSP as regarding individual entities but let’s simply discard it). There are quite a number of independent sources for each item I verified (I’ve added a couple) and the numbers are verifiable. Various EL can be removed. Yes, lists are sometimes not great journalism but again they seem to be an easy way to show a given topic has attracted attention as a set. Thanks, anyway. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Woolverton

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

Run-of-the-mill CEO who is not notable beyond his company, Halo Top Creamery. Most sources cited in the article are focused on the "healthy" quality of the ice cream and the strategy of the brand's viral marketing. I also have concerns about the depth and content of some of the cited articles from business news publications (e.g., Business Insider, Fast Company, and Entrepreneur) per WP:CORPDEPTH and whether they can be considered significant coverage (SIGCOV) of the company. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Internet, and California. Bridget (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1939–40 Maltese FA Trophy

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

This is another article I moved into draftspace; it was then moved into mainspace back without any changes. A WP:BEFORE search would be difficult for something that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malta. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or re-draftify. There's definitely something out there - see [35], which has a different date and scoreline for the final. This also contains similar but different information. If we could simply independently verify the information and fix what's wrong, I'd switch to keep in an instant. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy, doesn't need a separate article. Giant Snowman 14:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy – Impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can User:I dream of horses stop creating these. At least one of the two original nominations is trending to keep. The normal method with these kinds of things is just to nominate a single article, and see how that goes. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz See here. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Divided between Redirection or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maltese FA Trophy per WP:V failure Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, see here where the creator says that they have contacted the Maltese FA directly for the information but won't be able to provide a source, so basically original research. This article fails V and NOR, 2 of the 3 main policies of Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing to keep. It's not original research, it's not unverifiable, and it's part of an article structure which should be able to have an article on it if it passes GNG. There are definitely articles on the tournament, including this modern one. Unfortunately some of the information in the newspaper article doesn't match what is in our article, and I trust the newspaper more. I'm sure there would be additional sources if we were able to do a newspaper search of Malta for 1940 papers. SportingFlyer T·C 03:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also fixed the scoreline in the final, added scorers, and added two sources to the article. It could use further improvement, but I don't know how to look at Maltese papers. It's almost certainly notable if that 2007 article can get into that level of detail, though. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer If an article can be sourced, it should be kept. However, all because the 2007 article is sourceable doesn't mean this one is; if this one is sourceable, though, that's a good thing! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again, now divided between keep and redirect. Can we evaluate sourcing potential slightly more?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

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

Recently recreated page after earlier prod, evidently with the same tags. The station does exist (the NTC pulled a Mexico and double-dipped on DXKS) and has been around a while but needs citation help urgently to meet the GNG, a problem common to Philippines radio station articles. See also title DXKS-FM (CDO). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll try another relisting. Maybe User:Vineyard93 wants to take part in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Walker (actor)

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

The article has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP for a year and I suppose a WP:BLPPROD could be used but let's give this guy a shot. Walker is an actor who has played bit parts in a few movies and TV shows (here is his IMDb page) but his only meaningful role is in a TV show called 15/Love. As a result, he does have an IMDb page, a Fandom page, an Instagram account and so on but I fail to see any sort of coverage that is significant enough to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. He clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Pichpich (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non technically unreferenced, but the only two sources are stereotyped as bad. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Ortega (footballer, born 1997)

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

Played 2 matches and then disappeared. The only decent source that I can find is Noroeste, which is little more than a trivial mention. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have not been able to find any sources beyond the one raised by Spiderone, and automatic databases which only contain trivial mentions. The one human-created article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV as it's mainly about the team, he's literally just listed next to a bullet point. At this point in time, he doesn't come close in both English and Spanish media to reaching WP:BIO or WP:SPORTSBASIC from my search. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, does not make a credible claim to notability. The creator seems like one of the worst and most problematic creators, per the flood of deletion notices on his talk page and being indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella von Thurn und Valsássina-Como-Vercelli

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Isabella von Thurn und Valsássina-Como-Vercelli

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

The importance of the article is not shown. The deposed princess by marriage who did not become famous for anything. - RobertVikman (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Ludwig Rudolf of Hanover#Marriage and death. All the relevant details are there. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the references include the husband. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1998/02/02/the-reliable-source/19f5abdf-0eaf-4b71-8842-b2cafd2af050/

[2] ttps://lbpost.com/hi-lo/my-first-job-singer-maxine-waters-andrews/

[3] ttps://www.popmatters.com/the-waters-2020-interview-2645252287.html

[4] ttps://www.thefader.com/2013/06/14/no-concessions-20-feet-from-stardom-and-the-hidden-world-of-back-up-singers

[5] ttps://cultmtl.com/2013/07/pop-musics-dirty-vocal-secret/

[6] ttps://wamu.org/story/13/06/12/20_feet_from_the_spotlight_theres_singing_worthy_of_one/

[7] ttps://uproxx.com/hitfix/twenty-feet-from-stardom-puts-back-up-singers-in-the-spotlight-review/

[8] ttps://www.pbssocal.org/shows/artbound/carrying-a-note-forward-an-l-a-legacy-of-back-up-singers

[9] ttps://www.popmatters.com/178175-finally-in-the-spotlight-20-feet-from-stardom-2495695496.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]