Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 11	November 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 03:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have been asked to expand upon my rationale. A substantial number of participants in the discussion are satisfied that the sources provided are sufficient to show that this is a sufficiently notable junction to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. For this purpose, I have given little weight to the low-participation IP (as is standard practice in such discussions). Based on the level of participation in this discussion, which is high relative to AfDs being listed recently, there is no reason to believe that relisting would yield any different of an outcome. BD2412 T 01:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southcote Junction

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

Doesn't appear to be notable in its own right for anything in particular. Of the references, there are some maps (hardly extensive coverage), some rail history books (again, hardly comprehensive for notability), and a passing mention about NR doing some route upgrades or something. Not familiar with the books listed, so cannot pass judgement there. But what makes this particular rail junction notable in its own right? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 23:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 23:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coley branch line which diverged at this junction. I noticed the page author dumped a bunch of references into the article (and I don't use the word dumped lightly, take a look at how the second paragraph has 6 citations at the end). The second paragraph basically says nothing about the junction besides "it existed". Paragraph 3 is cited to a map and to a personal website with no indication of reliability. Paragraph 4 is also "it exists" and cites a map and the same personal website. I'm struggling to find any real discussion or coverage of the junction itself. Multiple instances of books cited with no page numbers are a further issue for verifiability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings and Bearian: The problem with that is that the Coley branch didn't diverge at Southcote Junction but at Coley Branch Junction, about 9 chains (200 yd; 180 m) closer to Reading West. Southcote Junction is where the two routes of the former Berks and Hants Railway diverge from each other, one to Hungerford (the "Berks" part of the railway) and the other to Basingstoke (the "Hants" part of the railway), as they still do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly open to supporting a better redirect or merge target, but it isn't sufficient to keep something solely because there's no good redirect/merge target. That being said, the article currently reads A second adjacent junction, the Coley Branch Junction, formerly existed a few metres to the north where the Coley branch line diverged. Is what's in the article right now inaccurate and need correction? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: You do appreciate, I hope, that denoting notability is not the only (or even the main) reason for citations. Their principal purpose is to give evidence to the accuracy of the information in the article. That is why this article has the cites it has, and I'm afraid, if that means you have to read some only to discover their only purpose is to substantiate a word or two in the article, that is just the way it is. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Unless you are counting paragraphs different to me, I completely fail to understand your comment The second paragraph basically says nothing about the junction besides "it existed". Paragraph 2 gives the early railway history of the junction, including the dates both legs opened, the promoting company and the relation to the nearby Coley Branch. That is a whole lot more than "it existed". -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to keep pinging me, this is on my watchlist and I will respond to any further replies as needed. I'm not doubting the junction exists, what I'm struggling with is seeing sources that contribute to GNG. I do understand that citations are for far more than just notability, but notability is what is being discussed here. To those who are arguing for a keep, please point me to a few sources that give significant coverage of this junction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coley branch line as suggested. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets notability standards and is a useful article. What makes it notable are the references to it, mostly those in the books, and its geospatial significance, in both the railway geography of South-East England and the local geography of Reading. A redirection to the Coley Branch Line would be plain wrong (as Redrose64 points about above) and almost as bad as the previous attempt to get rid of this article by redirecting it to a station 2km away. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete No reliable sources with substantive coverage, just blog pieces. Or redirect to Coley Branch Line 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:E537:99DE:F92:794C (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:E537:99DE:F92:794C: Hi, but could you identify yourself please, as all I can see here is an IPV6 address with 7 edits, all within a 12 minute period today. I'd also be interested in why you think that Gordon Biddle and O S Nock's The Railway Heritage of Britain is a blog piece. Many thanks. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IPs can be dynamically reassigned. Please don't automatically assume bad faith based solely on someone editing from an IP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are additional sources that should be added to the article, for example The Railway Times, 1908 and The Railway Age, 1907 and Railway News, 1905. These show the importance of the junction, especially when it was built. Taken with the existing sources, I think this article does meet WP:GNG, though only just. Opolito (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed all three sources. The first is about a new goods depot in Redding and the second is a mention of the Coley Branch. Both are one sentence mentions. I cannot even find the words "Southcote Junction" in the third. How exactly do these show importance? You understand that WP:SIGCOV expects more than one sentence mentions, right? I would expect something important could have at least an entire paragraph dedicated to it in a source, if not entire articles. If these sources are the best you can find, I think that's just more evidence the junction does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's capable of expansion - I just added more text and another ref. If it must be redirected, the best place is to Berks and Hants Railway, since the junction is part of that line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. All the independent sources I could access contained only brief mentions of the junction, nothing close to SIGCOV. I can't see the Vic Mitchell book but if the only "coverage" is the cited figure then that's very unlikely to count toward GNG either. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Mitchell & Smith books don't have page numbers. Most of the text in the book pertains to one or another of the illustrations (photos and maps), so they are generally cited by figure number. As it happens, Southcote Junction is covered by two pages in that book, plus more in "Country Railway Routes: Reading to Basingstoke" by the same authors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how much text is that? Even if it's significant, that's still only a single source (including both books). JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
27 lines of text, 3 photos and a map. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read Opolito's response with the additional sources I believe it will be worthwhile using them to expand the article further. As it stands it's a useful article that adequately shows the notability of the junction both in the past and now. As for redirect, which I hope doesn't happen, then I'm with Redrose64's redirect suggestion - it's nothing to do with the Coley Branch Line. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources say anything about the junction, they are one sentence mentions. Did you read the linked sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect for now, without prejudice to re-creating if more sources turn up. It seems we have a lot of mentions but little detail, which is not "significant coverage". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search of railway books shows there's enough coverage to clear WP:GNG (there are several books which go into various amounts of detail about this junction - many are mere mentions but several sources describe the junction over a period of more than a century, including at least one accident.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a quick search of railway books shows there's enough coverage to clear WP:GNG Can we see these books, please? If you don't give any details how are others supposed to respond to this new information? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Search on Google. It's obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright genius, you do realize people in different countries will see different results? If you are outside the U.S., I may not be able to see what you see. I am persuadable here but not if you stonewall me when I try to engage in good faith. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to agree that there is WP:SIGCOV in just looking through the first four pages of a standard search in google books. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed, or if it was, not competently.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 19 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Tate

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

I'm honestly not sure about this article; it's been speedily deleted in the past (I have alerted the previously deleting admin to its existence), and most of the sources deal with the book Tate wrote. Notability is not inherited. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Illinois, and Texas. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple books. I am not clear why the nominator mentioned notability not being inherited here as there is no indication that Tate is related to anyone on Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Christie Tate meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors (WP:AUTHOR) through multiple lines of evidence:
1. Significant book success:
- "Group" was a New York Times bestseller
- Selected for Reese Witherspoon's Book Club, a major cultural platform
- Translated into 19 languages, showing international impact
- Received significant reviews in major publications (Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
1. Multiple published works:
- Two traditionally published books ("Group" and "B.F.F.")
- Essays in major national publications (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
- Winner of the New Ohio Review's 2019 nonfiction contest
1. Sustained media coverage:
- Featured profiles independent of book promotion
- Coverage in Harvard Crimson
- Significant coverage in Chicago Tribune beyond book reviews
- Subject of broader cultural discussions about memoir writing and privacy
1. Professional recognition:
- Her work has sparked discussions about memoir ethics and privacy in mainstream media
- Significant impact in the memoir genre, particularly regarding mental health and therapy
- Regular contributor to major national publications
These factors demonstrate sustained, independent coverage beyond mere publicity for her books, meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Her impact on contemporary memoir writing and mental health discourse provides clear evidence of lasting cultural significance.

Note: The "notability is not inherited" comment seems misplaced as Tate's notability stands on her own merits as an author and public figure. Joeyghostman (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies criteria for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Marcocanol (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple works; I don't think notability is not inherited applies to works in cases of authors or other creative types. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV/WP:NAUTHOR. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 10:47, 19 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 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Parsons (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) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV in Google News (some of the links are for other people with the same name) and no significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 19 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 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Darbyshire

(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) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News shows only name mentions, no WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. No significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 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 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lovett

(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) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News only turns out one article with WP:SIGCOV (that calls him a "rookie"), rest of the Google News articles are just name mentions. Does not appear to have any significant success. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 2 primary sources. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 19 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 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Stephen

(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) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on Google News. Appears to have no significant success in the sport. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career that fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 19 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 redirect‎ to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk#Personal life. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Balfour, Countess of Balfour

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

There is no indication of notability in the article nor have I been successful in attempts to find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. This entry appears to be entirely genealogical. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk (her father) per WP:ATD (not an implausible search term). Ingratis (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk#Personal life as above. Her father is a better target than her husband as her husband doesn't appear to be notable either. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found quite a bit about the husband, including his interesting idea on how his daughter might inherit his title. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk#Personal life per DrKay and Ingratis. Should her husband prove to be notable in the future it should be redirected there. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:45, 19 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 keep‎. WP:SNOW closing this; nominated for deletion 8 minutes after creation, electoral districts at state/federal/national level broadly considered notable as a corollary of WP:NPOL. Lack of references does not automatically equal a lack of notability (nb WP:NEXIST). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liegnitz (electoral district)

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

Completely unreferenced article.–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this, I will add references and further sources to this and the other seven articles, as well as future ones in this series. Erinthecute (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs added and electoral districts are routinely kept at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 21:54, 12 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 redirect‎ to Soul Solution. ✗plicit 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheleen Thomas

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

Too short article and also cited content doesn't enlighten the subject as a significant coverage.–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this singer, brief association with a song then seems to have faded away. Even the sourcing now in the article is slim... Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soul Solution, So Pure!'s other name, the band who had the charting single she performed on. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested to her band, which is a very common alternative to deleting. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soul Solution per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 19 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercurymen (Canadian band)

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

Non-notable Canadian rock band. GamerPro64 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. GamerPro64 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low/no participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found about this group; charting on college radio stations isn't a sign of notability. They don't appear to have won any awards or much of anything else we'd look at for musical notability. Even in .ca sources, there is nothing. Freddy Mercury is about all that comes up. Nothing to be found, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:45, 13 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Press / VIP

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

Was unable to find any sources to this publishing house to show notability. GamerPro64 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting this is a small press publishing "interview books featuring prominent scholars and philosophers". Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low/no participation in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 12 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Francis, Indiana

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

Here GNIS and the USPS conspire to make up a "community", because the actual "community" here is the seminary itself. There is a post office, and it is in the buildings of the seminary, which sits in majestic isolation at the end of a long driveway, surrounded by a great deal of forest, as it always has been. One may decide that the facility itself is notable, but that's a different article. The fact is there's nothing town-like here, and this article should not exist. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that this was originally about the seminary, but was turned into a place article on the strength of the post office presence. We've had other cases, however, of post offices in places which have no associated community. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 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!} 19:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find plenty of information about the seminary, but none of it is independent (either its own web presence or the local archdiocese), save for a few passing mentions or articles that plainly copied WP. So WP:GNG (which is the relevant standard, because this is clearly not a community in the usual sense) is not met. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:19, 12 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 userfy‎. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thafnine

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or YouTube videos. A WP:BEFORE search finds one article [1] which does not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been moved to Draftspace.Blethering Scot 21:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not while this discussion remains open, you don't. We have the option of draftifying it as the conclusion to this discussion, but the process has to run its course first and you can't cut it short by moving the page into draft before the discussion has been closed through the proper process. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is no need for the pointy reply. The article had already been moved by the creator, to an incorrect draft space title of User:Thafnine. As this was not a username it was requested to be deleted by myself and sorted by another admin. I moved it properly to draft space as the article could not sit in a fake user space. Two admins have already been involved, which absolutely highlights the principle of AGF. Blethering Scot 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Thafnine

– – Pbrks ^(t·c) 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, as the creator of this article, I am wondering if I can pull this article back into my sandbox instead of it being fully deleted? I cannot find any other secondary sources or references that can help with the notability of this article, but due to this article being for the Wiki Education program that I am a part of for my college, I am wondering if I could simply pull this article back to my sandbox so that my professor can still see it and grade it as is. Sebastian-SolaceFish (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be userfied or moved to Draft space? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per good-faith request of page creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no consensus. Are there any objections to userfying this article as requested by its creator, Sebastian-SolaceFish?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage in RS used in the article and none seen in Gnews or a general search. I don't see this person as meeting GNG or any notability guidelines, BLP or otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Userfy per creator's request. Sandbox drafts are not required to meet GNG or any notability guidelines and deleting would probably be a breach of policy (WP:DRAFT#Deleting drafts, WP:Deletion policy#Deletion of drafts). I'm not quite sure why this was relisted. @Oaktree b, I'm not sure if you missed the discussion above, are you sure you want to delete a userspace draft? Toadspike [Talk] 11:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can draft as needed, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:38, 19 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 14:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

AfDs for this article:

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

First of all, the article is written in the form of a fan-made story, attempting to villainize an entity (or perhaps show off? There are numerous instances in articles about Indian military history where users have included shocking or vulgar acts committed by militants).
WP:CITEKILL has made source analysis more complex, but once unreliable sources were cleared, the analysis became much easier. The article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, as well as old sources falling under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS have widely been used (caused the reason for the put down of the last proposal, and i was on a break)

Analysis:

The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. 7 (1713-63)* by Lindsay, J. O., Ed:

The book only mentions "Murshidabad" once, with the context found in the parent article on Maratha invasions of Bengal.

The same applies to *The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4)* by Stewart Gordon;

It mentions the event alongside the "Maratha invasions of Bengal," which, indeed, should also be referenced here. A separate article is not warranted for this event, as it is a minor occurrence within a larger conflict—specifically, a plunder. Such events do not meet the minimum notability standards. In fact, an entire page from a reliable source is missing in this case. Additionally, the use of a military conflict infobox is unnecessary here, as it follows the same problematic pattern seen with articles like "Battle of X" or "X-Y Wars" in Indian military history. This approach has caused numerous issues. In conclusion, the article fails to meet notability standards and is poorly written. The content could easily be integrated into the parent article instead. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note to the closer: Please review the background of the voters as meatpuppetry is common among these topic areas.-Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pillaging of an undefended city doesn't warrant an article and cannot be described as a "Maratha victory" (as claimed in the infobox). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and because of a prior AFD appearance, this discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion. So far, I see no meatpuppets participating here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I trust their source analysis – articles like this and related sourcing are a known issue. While I haven't checked the sources myself, their reasoning is sound and there have been no objections. Hopefully this can provide the necessary quorum. Toadspike [Talk] 11:22, 19 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. Even though 4meter4 provides the only serious "keep" arguments at the end, consensus (discounting the promo-bombing likely sock- or meatpuppets) is to delete this at least in the current TNT-worthy form. Sandstein 20:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Cities of Peace

AfDs for this article:

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted article WP:REFBOMBED with passing mentions and press releases of individual cities becoming international cities for peace, which don't really provide significant coverage of the organization as a whole. Even the one "publication reference" that I was able to access through The Wikipedia Library doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pppery, for the feedback. I understand the concerns about notability and the type of references currently used. I am working to find more sources that offer comprehensive coverage of International Cities of Peace as an organization rather than passing mentions of individual cities joining the network.

I believe International Cities of Peace has demonstrated significant global impact as it has been active in hundreds of cities worldwide, promoting peace initiatives and even achieving Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I’ll focus on finding additional independent, reliable sources that address this organizational reach.

Thank you again for your guidance, and I’m open to any further suggestions on how to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. WAASI TECH (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply came up as 76% AI-written on gptzero.me. Left guide (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will monitor and help with this. I have read the article and find the organization has merit. Thanks to Wassi Tech and Pppery for the discussion. I will check to see if guidelines are followed. Be back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See major edit 11-03-24 and, if agreeable, remove from sorting lists. Additional suggestions/improve welcome. Vritta100 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting lists are a way of cataloging deletion discussions that are open. Open discussions (and this discussion will stay open until at least November 5, likely longer) are almost never removed from the list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated three strategies for keeping this article:

1. I am researching a broader sourcing of references for the organization. To date, as noted in the Article, coverage of International Cities of Peace is included in many global media sources, including the BBC, The China Daily, the Westerly Sun, Ashland, Oregon News, Belfast Live, Irish Central, iTV, New Horizon, and many others; Publication mentions: Weifang Openings, Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, International Peaceful Cities Series. What is included has value but more will be needed.

2. Will help edit the article for complete adherence to Wikipedia protocols. Suggestions are welcomed from other editors. This will, hopefully, be completed over the next week.

3. I will investigate the overall vision, mission, and goals of the organization. This NGO is in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC and has representation at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva. The intent of the organization is to create value at the grassroots level. The organization is fifteen years old and has shown growth. Clarity is needed but I'm willing to put in time to make the Article meet Wikipedia standards.

This will take some time. I hope we editors can have a bit of patience before deleting because the above strategies, hopefully, will clarify and add value. Rather than delete, improve. Back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have completed in draft form more substantive, non-promotional copy and will implement with REF, etc. Still sourcing known hard copy publications but waiting on verified citations. Ready to add seven new articles from several countries, including Ghana, UK, Denmark, Togo, and United States. Going well. Wiki protocol followed in all. Other help will be welcomed, especially from potential Lexis-Nexis support. Let me know. Thank you. Vritta100 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit and minor edit, Sunday, Nov. 3rd. Text more substantive and to the point. Citations follow Wiki guidelines. Resources include multinational news media, including Ghana, Togo, China, United States, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Publications and journals with articles and mentions included, particularly a series of books entitled "International Cities of Peace" as a result of International Cities of Peace working with UNESCO Chair of Peace Studies. In addition, impact shown with practical work in five Cities of Peace: Argentina, Denmark, Nigeria, China, and Kenya. Improved statements of vision and mission, along with organizational structure. Much research done to verify information and citations. Thanks to WASSI TECH for initiation of the page as well as Pppery for notification of problems. Will work with all editors on improvements. Please remove the Deletion notice and Deletion listing. Vritta100 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wiki:ORGCRIT, this organization meets all criteria for a notable organization: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In terms of the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia, this organization contributes to a branch of knowledge (i.e. the ancient concept of "city of peace"), which has an extensive history and usage, yet minimal resources are available for understanding its significant application in modern times. The page should not be deleted. Vritta100 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vritta100 are you WAASI TECH? If so, you are evading a block. I've opened an SPI on your accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not Wassi Tech. What is your concern, Liz? Vritta100 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. The media coverage cited in the article is not WP:SIGCOV of the organization; it's routine coverage of the member cities' activities through the organization's programming. Other sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and/or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Two of the participants here are socking but even if we discount their opinions, we only have one argument besides the nominator and this discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion due to its prior appearance at AFD. So, we need some more participation here, at least not by socks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE... 1. The blocking issue has been resolved in my favor thanks to someone looking more deeply into the situation. 2. Here are the facts... Directly, yes directly, caused by International Cities of Peace (ICP) and reflected in the citations and resources on this Page: funding in the Nakivale Refugee Camp in Uganda by Aalborg, Denmark arranged by ICP; production of the first Peace Studies Journal from Nanjing, China, as well as the opening of the Weifang Peace Institute -- yes, this historic progress and others are directly the result of ICP; a mediation program in Lagos, Nigeria facilitated and provided a website by ICP; Programming development, facilitated by ICP in partnership with Mil Milenios de Paz in over 20 communities in South America; Podcasts featuring peace building in many cities, including Westerly, New Jersey; many, many more results that can be added to this Deletion discussion with a little investigation -- all directly due to ICP. The Page is not promotional but sticks to the facts. The association has made notable progress as a direct result of serving as the means and functionality for hundreds of communities. Your assessment about ICP not being notable is from "old thinking" that an association cannot put the members first. The above mentioned "not made any sort of traction" comes from an unfortunate lack of deeper understanding, perhaps due to lack of time, of the facts and mission of International Cities of Peace as an innovative background organization that respects local peace makers enough to work with them and directly facilitate their progress, allow them to take most credit, and build relationships, enabling them to continuously take actions to make their community's better. This page should NOT be deleted, or we as editors would be contributing to the fallacy of using that 2011 "grassroots" comment being applied to on-the-ground beneficial modern peace building, thereby disrespecting local people, groups and municipal governments putting in place concerted peace efforts through ICP's work. This will certainly make you upset, but I think this organization is important and making progress in its, I grant you, rather grandiose mission (which has not be put on the Page due to sticking to facts): "The mission of International Cities of Peace is to help energize a tipping force for global peace. To that end, we are creating the infrastructure of peace, community by community, to localize, democratize, and sensitize geopolitical decisions to the needs of families." Now, yes, putting that statement on the Page would be promotional! In all, ICP facilitates community-based programs and especially leadership, most of which can barely put food on the table, or avoid slaughter by roving bands, but who utilize to good effect the benefits of International Cities of Peace. That is "notability", as shown by dozens of independent resources. International Cities of Peace is definitely a different type of organization -- putting customers first as essential to its mission. What organization is making more progress in the world? You can call this an impassioned plea and disregard but the facts in the Page are presented in a manner that adheres to Wiki guidelines. NOT DELETE. Vritta100 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The UN seems to have something with the same name [2], but it doesn't appear related to the subject of this article. Sourcing is strictly primary/social medial when I search for this "thing", or the UN items. I don't see notability and a distinct lack of sourcing is an issue. And please don't use AI to generate these walls of text, they really don't help the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the last AfD mentions this as a "grassroots initiative" in 2011, and it's not made any sort of traction in the decade since, this is only proving non-notability. No further coverage has been found in RS that discuss this thing, it appears to have faded away. The article now reads as PROMO as well. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Pppry / Administrator: 100% consensus will not be reached though, with recent extensive editing, notability and importance of the Page by secondary sources is established. Please reconsider deletion to NO DELETION and withdraw of nomination for deletion for the FOLLOWING REASONS: Misunderstandings by editors of the association's focus on putting crediting/media citations for members front and center • An unnecessary and overturned blocking initiative and bullying of editors • Overt calls for deletion that resulted in superficial discussions and misrepresentations • A simple Google search finds over 150 articles and mentions from independent sources, some are highlighted on page, most are not due to amount from over 400 member cities -- these do not include substantial attention from South Korea, China and other Asian firewall sources • The Page follows Wiki protocol of non-promotion and other criteria • The exhibits of global reach and the organic growth of the association membership • The importance of a peace initiative, which is a difficult subject, successfully implementing hundreds of substantive local and global community and inter-community work for the betterment of people, both in advantaged and disadvantaged nations • U.N. accreditation with representation in New York and Geneva • One of the purposes of Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general is to inform, especially when the subject is controversial. Peace, unfortunately, is controversial and International Cities of Peace has had success in finding common ground. This Page is needed and informative and contributes to little understood branches of knowledge, peace studies and peace building. Thank you, Pppry, for holding the line and allowing editors to make this page better. Please consider my overarching request in addition to the three editors requesting no deletion, as well as administrators rejecting the blocking of editors. Sent with respect. Vritta100 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't withdraw this nomination (Wikipedia rules only allow that to be done if no other uses haven't supported deletion) and even if I could I wouldn't. I made a deliberate choice to disengage, and let other AfD regulars evaluate the article for themselves, since it's been abundantly clear that neither of us is going to convince the other since shortly after your first comment here.

Your best bet here is to stop posting walls of text that nobody is likely to read and try to focus on presenting specific sources that establish notability. Ideally the three best sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there were a reverse WP:HEYMANN standard for articles becoming even less worthy of keeping over the course of the AfD discussion, this would qualify. Massive blocks of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH have been introduced into the article. It already failed WP:NORG but now it fails ever so much more so. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the first image (File:Growth2023.png) is probably a copyvio, to boot. Gonna nominate it for deletion on Commons. Toadspike [Talk] 11:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This discussion has been bludgeoned within an inch of its life, and yet Dclemens correctly points out that the article is terrible. I likely contains several copyright violating images, tons of unsourced OR, and several citations to inappropriate sources like some linkedin post I can't view without logging in. If I've ever seen a case for TNT, this is it. Even if this is notable (I am not sure it is), we need to start from the ground up. Toadspike [Talk] 11:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Would be good to delete current Page source and for another editor to take over and start from scratch. Thank you. Vritta100 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability of any flavour, just pure promo blurb. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. In looking through google books and scholar, I do think there is a credible claim that this organization is well known internationally and would pass WP:NONPROFIT. It gets mentioned briefly but what I think is in significant global context in [3] There's coverage of the organziation's work globally within context to the Covid-19 pandemic in Africa (for example) and also drug/gang wars in Mexico ([4]). There's also coverage of Nanjing becoming the first city of peace in China in 2017 in several books (for example [5], [6]), and its work in Dayton, Ohio [7]) Some journal articles with coverage include: [8], [9], [10] Theses also cover the organization, [11] Altogether, I think it meets the NONPROFIT WP:SNG, but the current article needs serious editing down. I suggest stubifying it, rather than WP:TNT.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick and dirty source analysis: The first, third, fourth, fifth sources mentioned in this !vote have but a single sentence on the subject and are definitionally WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. The Dayton source has four brief trivial mentions. Of the scholarly mentions, one is a single paragraph that recapitulates the organization's mission, and another is a brief namecheck, as is the thesis. Two of 4meter4's listed sources are the exact same book chapter (see here, here). That source constitutes independent WP:SIGCOV, but it does not pass WP:NONPROFIT or WP:NORG because multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV are required. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 19 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 no consensus‎. Sandstein 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sopon Pornchokchai

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 3 sources provided are primary. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet the people notability guidelines as mentioned by LibStar. I did a few Google searches, and the results were minimal to say the least. Nothing that indicates significance or notability as a person. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was considerable press spotlight on him in 2013 when he ran for Bangkok governor. It's mostly reporting of his campaigning stunts (Thairath, Sanook, Prachatai), interviews focusing on his policies (MCOT FM 96.5, Voice TV), and profiles and campaign updates based on PR material (Isranews, Krungthep Turakij, Post Today, Sanook, Sanook, Sanook). Apart from that campaign, he's quite regarded as an expert in his field, and is quoted a lot in the press,[12][13][14][15][16][17] which should push his notability beyond that coming from the single event. That said, there doesn't seem to be much third-party coverage that looks at the subject's biography in depth. There's this Sanook article, though it's based on information in the Thai Wikipedia. And there's a recent interview on MCOT FM 100.5, but the info mainly comes from him talking about himself. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His Thai name "โสภณ พรโชคชัย" should be used for searching. There are plenty of references, such as those provided by Paul_012 above. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources given by Paul_012 above—that's enough for him to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. ManoiCMU (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more eyes to look at the sources presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 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!} 19:00, 12 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 no consensus‎. Sandstein 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janicke Askevold

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

I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, no evidence of significant roles. Directing non notable films doesn't really add to WP:DIRECTOR. And only 1 hit in google news, which is unusual for someone with a career in Europe. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Norway. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would say she meets WP:NACTOR with her roles in My Way and China Salesman, two notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm she had significant roles in those 2 films? LibStar (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can. "premier rôle important" says one of the sources cited about her role in My Way (Sofia Kiukkonen) (you can also watch the film); and as for China Salesman, I haven't seen it but all sources mention her as "starring" in the film (https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514f344d444f31457a6333566d54/index.html for example, or https://variety.com/2018/film/news/mike-tyson-steven-seagal-china-salesman-bought-1202663343/ or just look at the poster (https://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/films/china-salesman, she's not smaller than Steven Seagal :D) Mushy Yank (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My database access has borked so I can't evaluate these properly, but there are lots of Norwegian newspapers that mention her here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 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!} 19:00, 12 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South American Youth Championships

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

Articles included are different from each other in name. even at close scenario, hatnote can work. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless. Three entries which would make it more crowded in the hatnote space. Also, at worst South American Youth Championships would be a redirect to one of them. Geschichte (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, note that this is a set index article and not a traditional article, see for example South American Championships or any of those in Category:Set index articles on sports. Both South American Youth Football Championship and South American Youth Championships in Athletics are often just called "South American Youth Championships" in published sources, so it's reasonable that someone looking up that phrase might want to go to one of those articles. --Habst (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there are also "South American Youth Championships" in chess, archery, and sailing, so the list could certainly be expanded in the future. --Habst (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a valid and useful disambiguation page. Left guide (talk) 03:15, 14 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espu Kola

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per invalid deletion rationale, populated places do not fall under GNG. Unless you can elaborate on your reasoning? Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were censuses in Iran in 2011 and 2016 which should give us more up-to-date info rather than the cited 2006 one. However, I couldn't find any information in their census data site about this specific settlement, possibly I didn't find the correct sheet though. --Gilc (talk) 20:56, 12 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. Sandstein 19:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failing Better Now

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:BEFORE turned up no reviews. Except this which is hardly a reliable source. Geschichte (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; clearly no reviews apart from cinemacats above. Does not pass on any other criteria.Spiralwidget (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of offhand mentions in Newspapers.com, but not anything that would establish that this film is notable. It looked to have released to extremely little fanfare, with the little coverage it did receive it got by virtue of having DeWitt play a smaller role. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:20, 13 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norges-la-Ville

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and also WP:TROUT. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An official administrative division of the country, of course it passes GNG.
Keep per WP:NPLACE #1 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep its a municipality. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an administrative sub-division. --Gilc (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep crystal clear notable as a populated place. Can be expanded with information from the French article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that there are plenty of precedents to keep all communes of France, which are more like towns or townships in the United States. We’re going through a drive to find references for all such municipalities in the “Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2009”. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 15 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos Corporation

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well-known company in Canada, simply for doing the asbestos mining. [18], [19] and [20]... Or redirect to here I suppose -https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Asbestos_and_the_law#Canada... I'm surprised there isn't an article on the industry here. It was still exporting the stuff for years after it was illegal here at home. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a nasty strike a number of years ago in Quebec [21] that caused ripples for decades. Asbestos Corp was one of the companies involved. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two sources easily pass GNG, and this is more a candidate for expansion rather than deletion; also the vague rationale is a disqualifier; why does it fail GNG? Nate • (chatter) 21:22, 12 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takoutaue-ike Dam

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails GNG so hard even jawiki doesn't have a page about it. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find WP:SIGCOV of this dam, and I don't see an obvious redirect target (there doesn't appear to be an article on the nearby pond or stream that this dams on the English Wikipedia). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:25, 19 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markie Mark

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

Nothing out there in the archives of the media press for this individual, either under Mark Strippel or Markie Mark. He is clearly a successful individual both in music and radio management, but I can't see that he is independently notable beyond the notability of his band (who already have an article) or the BBC radio stations he has an involvement in. Flip Format (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, although Panjabi Hit Squad is a possibility for a redirect target. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 15 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Grant Neighborhood Association

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

Non-notable neighborhood association which lacks WP:SIGCOV, comes off with a promotional tone, and is sourced to primary sources and a fluff piece. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NORG. A neighborhood or suburb is often notable; a neighborhood association is rarely. FWIW, I was secretary of my neighborhood association, and we were not notable, either. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NORG. No independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 19 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 14:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Star Daily

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage about this newspaper to establish notability. I couldn't even find any trivial mentions of it in any reliable sources. The only mentions of it that I could find were in Wikipedia mirrors. It's also been unreferenced for over 15 years now. GranCavallo (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Russia. GranCavallo (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having also previously tried to find anything on this publication, and coming up blank, I'd like to second everything the Nom says. I also think if the editors of the Russian, Erzya and Moksha Wikipedia's haven't managed to pull together an article for the main newspaper in Mordovia, I don't know if we'll be able to. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources that show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:51, 19 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 14:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thurman, Indiana

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

A rail non-place/post office, briefly dismissed in the local history as "but the postoffice, now abolished, since the introduction of rural free delivery, was located at Thurman, which is not a village either." Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found, and anyway the article is a lie since the only narrative source of information specifically states it is not a village. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. No results on Google News (that one result is a false positive). Less than 70 results on Google Search. *starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. Non-notable locale.TH1980 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPLACE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:48, 19 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 no consensus‎. Discussion has been going on for ~3 weeks and there has been a mix of keep and delete votes. There's been a debate on whether the sources are reliable, have significant coverage, etc. Therefore, I'm closing this as 'no consensus'. Even one participant has pointed it out. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Bus

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

Not notable besides its brief appearance on Angry Video Game Nerd. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks notability. Gumboot! 🌵 ^(talk) 14:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was deleted before with far less to establish notability (and I would have agreed). Having recreated the page, I would now argue that there is more notability to the game than just AVGN. The soundtrack is regarded by multiple outlets as notable for its bad quality, and a Venezuelan university report mentions its legacy of bringing attention to games in Venezuela. Whether AVGN promoting it led to more people paying attention shouldn't imo be a disqualifier. JSwift49 20:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: JSwift49 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep. A decent amount of sources demonstrated its independent notability, even if the article does require some rewrites to be in a more readable state.

By the way, article had been marked with copyright violations due to the article previously hosting lyrics to a song from Arthur which is obviously still copyrighted and the lyrics are still in article history. It has no effect on this article's deletion. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stuff about the soundtrack comes from Screenrant and CBR, sites long known as non-indicative of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added Vice and The Music soundtrack coverage as well. JSwift49 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VICE doesn't seem half bad, but it only specifically points out the title theme, leaving open the question of whether it's actually coverage of the game itself. WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail".

The Music is only a sentence or two. Not significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack was also featured on a 2022 episode of BBC Radio 3's 'Late Junction' program covering gaming soundtracks, though it is not possible to see what was specifically said about it. [22] JSwift49 14:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JSwift49. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's very little actual substantive coverage, and what does exist isn't enough to build an article on. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a full mirror of the page to not be lost media Iamsteve69420 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is that the game's notorious audio is well-known but the citations in the article do not provide much coverage of any other aspects of the game, little that there is. Most of the sources are listicles, which is fine, but their purpose and content is mostly alone to state that the menu music sucks. I don't think a passing academic reference is good evidence that it's brought attention to Venezuelan game development. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the basic coverage of other aspects of the game is to be expected, as the game is known for being exceedingly simple (drive the bus back and forth and honk the horn). So the soundtrack is the main aspect of notoriety, though you also have AVGN, the academic reference, Niconico News with dedicated coverage of the game at large, plus some of the listicles discussing the soundtrack also mention the gameplay.

Screen Rant says the game is "on the list of must-play games for YouTubers, Twitch streamers, and retro enthusiasts interested in the more bizarre parts of gaming history."
There were also two books/reference guides? in Japanese about CrazyBus written by the same person; however I could only find previews of a couple of pages.
- https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I033434377
- https://ndlsearch.ndl.go.jp/books/R100000002-I033434354
JSwift49 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AVGN is non-RS per WP:VG/S unless it's widely reported that the AVGN review itself is notable. For the others, again, what mention there is of the game is trivial or not really reliable. Screen Rant mentions it very briefly in passing. And I can't see any evidence those books have anything to do with the game from the links supplied? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we have an academic source covering the AVGN interview, and Screen Rant additionally gives Crazy Bus five sentences on its list of worst soundtracks?

Re. the books, the page previews I found confirm they are about CrazyBus (they are both linked in the article). JSwift49 11:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the article was first created, I argued that there was enough coverage of the game by sources to warrant inclusion. The addition of further references demonstrates this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Spanish Wikipedia article has seven references. Left guide (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: According to Perennial Sources, ScreenRant is only marginally WP:RELIABLE and there's no consensus on Vice. That leaves only the BBC. Still, I'm all for giving this article a chance, especially if more and better sources can be found.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Game acclaimed for its low quality, recurrently appearing on worst of all time lists. [23], [24], [25]. Svartner (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin - these do not seem like reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Bomb is a user-generated fan wiki, and fails WP:USERG. The "Bad Game Hall of Fame" is a one-man Wordpress WP:BLOG and the other is also a blog with no reason to think it has a clear editorial policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for better source evaluation. Seems like there are sources present, but a good RS with SIGCOV is yet to be found. Also, need to address the newly found sources' reliability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per Zx, Giant Bomb is a fan-generated wiki, and Bad Game Hall of Fame seems to a self-published blog. I can't judge Passage M Secreta since it doesn't seem to have any editorial standards I can find, and was a blog for a long period of time. Crazy Bus's article was made a month after it shifted away from being a blog (Though I still can't verify if it actually had standards or not) but its author has been blocked and thus whoever wrote it is unverifiable. There's so much undeterminable here I'm not even sure if it's viable for use at all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don’t support adding Giant Bomb or Bad Game Hall of Fame to the article for these reasons. I think the existing sources are enough for the article to be kept. JSwift49 11:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is only notable for negative reception, then I would suggest List of video games notable for negative reception. The argument here seems to be that it is less notable than Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing? IgelRM (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask to be careful of WP:OTHER. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close as no consensus. Without an in-depth source analysis (preferably in a table like the example at WP:SIRS), it is really hard to judge the merits of either side of this discussion. At this point there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, and I can't easily discern myself which is best, partly because many of the sources are in a language other than English. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 19 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 redirect‎ to Sistani (people). ✗plicit 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sistani of Golestan

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

This article is very difficult to understand. Some people moved from Sistan to Golestan for reasons that are largely lost in translation. Is this movement notable? Between Farsi and Russian sources, hard to say. I don’t think our readers are well served by having something so garbled in mainspace, so suggest draftifying for further work. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sistani (people). Running the sources through machine translation suggests that this migration is likely notable and the sources seem to be reliable scholarly work. This might qualify as content not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:DEL#REASON #14) and justify WP:TNT, but deletion would remove the sources from the page history in case someone wants to recreate this with comprehensible text. Therefore, blanking and redirecting is the best solution. Toadspike [Talk] 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator I’ve no objection to a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sistani (people) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:47, 19 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Allegiance

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously at AfD in 2006, the article claims that the film has "garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response". No actual sources to confirm this. No sources were provided at the previous AfD. The best claim to notability is being a finalist at Australian Effects & Animation Festival (AEAF): [26]. NFILM doesn't mention being a finalist as an indication of notability, only a major award win. Even if this was counted towards notability (which I'm not), it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggesting redirection to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources are kind of slow going since the bulk were done in the early to mid 2000s, but I'm finding evidence that this did get some coverage back in the day. I found some coverage of the film in The Age - the overall article was about SW fandom but the film is covered in some depth. I did find a copy of the fan magazine on Lulu, but you have to pay for it. I'm leaning towards this being notable - at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere because the sources that I'm finding tend to focus on it as one of the best examples of Star Wars fan film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge: I've added a source for I-CON's audience award (but that is not in itself neither sufficient nor likely to be overwhelmingly significant). It does not appear in Will Brooker's "Using the Force" (2002) despite what GBooks suggests. I'd take an actual review on theforce.net (non-forum) but there doesn't seem to be one. At best it looks like it could be a weak keep, but it's not there yet. Of the current sources, the Otero&Redondo book is a short descriptive para and has no independent analysis/review. Nor do the The Age stories. I can't read the Herald Sun article but it appears likely to be similar (?). I'm seeing very few hits for "Fan Films Quarterly", and not clear to me if they should be treated as an RS, and how much weight should be given to their opinion even if they are. La Muy's praise is limited to stating it has (GTranslated) "a more than successful setting". Datebook is a short but solid entry in a listicle by a freelancer, but it's currently the only thing which is solid. I've taken a stab at a merge here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide so far seems the best solution to me. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just. 2020 (18 years after release) saw three paragraphs in San Francisco Chronicle, "Savoring ‘Star Wars’ with fans’ guidance" by Jef Rouner, May 4, 2020 and online [27]. At the time it had some coverage in Halliday, Claire (13 June 2002). "Amazing". The Age., in local news (very interview based) "In a galaxy - close to you". Melton/Bacchus Marsh Leader. 21 May 2002., and Williams, Kate (22 April 2002). "Star Wars fan - feels the force". Leader - Sandringham Brighton Advertiser. and other short mentions such as in [28]. International coverage almost 20 years later in SF Chron gets me over the line. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme's source analysis. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above such as reliable newspapers such as San Francisco Chronicle and The Age so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 20 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 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family of JD Vance

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This article is two sentences and contains nothing not already in JD Vance's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every single piece of information can be found in his article. Bluepotato81 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. Not sufficient significance to keep this page. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BIOFAMILY "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability". — Maile (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Two sentences with no information is not an article. Do not do this. Reywas92^Talk 17:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kentucky and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WorldMappings (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leave the article pitching (which this reads as) to magazines, please. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK.TH1980 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, maybe this could be worthy of it's own article years down the line, haha. Grahaml35 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is indeed a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which adds to value to the encyclopedia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:46, 19 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 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Bujňák

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

Bujňák played a total of 711 minutes in the Slovak First League before transferring to lower clubs beginning with 2017. Regarding secondary sources, I only found a passing mention on Dnes24. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Needs secondary sources to show WP:SIGCIV. Unable to find any coverage that meets this. Demt1298 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Demt1298 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:FOOTYN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 19 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 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Sukharev (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG (WP:NBASIC).--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 13:05, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no major success in the sport, not even played for a top-flight team. Nothing much in the form of significant coverage in English in Google News. Very few pages on Google Search for his Russian name. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 13 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 merge‎ to Visual arts education#United Kingdom. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessArt

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

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [29], [30] and [31]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Visual arts education#United Kingdom: While I understand its impact on education is immense, I don't see enough significant coverage from reliable sources regarding this organization to establish its notability. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?: If coverage by the schools is not enough for a dedicated article... would merging, with a redirect, to Visual_arts_education#United_Kingdom be most appropriate? ArtDataArt (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Visual arts education#United Kingdom per WP:ATD. @ArtDataArt, BerryForPerpetuity, Alpha3031, Oaktree b what about this option? 4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support a merge to there. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:50, 19 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middletown, Allen County, Indiana

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

Again the local history comes trough with the goods: this was another town built on speculation that the railroad was going to bring business, except that the railroad went somewhere else instead, and the place quickly failed. There's no trace of it now or as far back as I can see in aerials and toposl indeed, it only got into GNIS (and thence on the topo) from a state highway map. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a few homes there on Google Maps, nothing like a significant town though. Google News does not provide evidence of notability. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:07, 12 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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand–Vietnam football rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Unanimously deleted in the first AFD. Therefore echoing User:Spiderone's words from then; "I can't find much to support the existence of this rivalry, let alone its notability. See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable and GNG needs to be met. In this case, it doesn't appear to be met." Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Football, Thailand, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I know the rivalry exists to some degree since they are both members of the EAFF, even if it's not Thailand's main rivalry (it seems to be against Indonesia). Svartner (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are at least two references in the current version that directly discuss the rivalry: The New Mandala article (which is actually more about the nationalist background to the conflict) and the Fox Sports Asia article reproduced by Seasia. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Both teams are members of the ASEAN Football Federation and had officially faced each other 55 times since 1956. Both teams had established a long rivalry due to them being close to each other geographically, and since they frequently face each other in the important games of regional tournaments such as SEA Games or the AFF Championship. The match between both teams is considered as the "El Classico of ASEAN". References about this rivalry in English may be limited, but in Thai or Vietnamese, the number of references covering this subject is immense. For example, in Vietnamese : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 . During the press conference for friendly game between Vietnam and Thailand in September, Vietnam national team coach Kim Sang-sik also said "The relationship between Vietnam and Thailand is a rivalry like the one between South Korea and Japan, it's a regional rivalry." 7. - Lâm (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman, I pointed out two sources in the article and Lâm mentioned several Vietnamese sources above. It would be nice if you explained why you think they contribute no evidence of notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Paul 012 could you help find references for this subject in Thai as well? It would be a great addition to the article alongside the sources in Vietnamese. Lâm (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Please justify the sources you say are GNG. Giant Snowman 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among the sources I've mentioned above: Source 1 from VnExpress talks about the matches between both teams since the 1990s; source 2 from Tổ quốc talks about the similar topic; source 4 also talks about the head to head history of both teams and mentioned "the match between Vietnam and Thailand always creates attraction for fans because in almost all tournaments in Southeast Asia, Vietnam and Thailand are often considered rivals"; source 5 The article talks about the actions of the match between Vietnam and Thailand in the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification is showing why the game is called the "ASEAN Clasico" match 6.

I also found other sources outside Vietnamese press. The Asian Football Confederation called this game "ASEAN derby" in this article. In this article about the match review between Vietnam and Thailand, FIFA mentions that the "clash is capturing the imagination across the region and beyond, due to the long-standing rivalry between the south-east Asians". This BBC article here in Vietnamese also calls Thailand as Vietnam's rivalry. In an interview with So Foot, Thai international Tristan Do said "There is an extreme rivalry between the countries of Southeast Asia and especially between Thailand and Vietnam." Lâm (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lam.As per thiss: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've checked all the sources provided by Lâm above and they clearly show that the GNG has been met. Toadspike [Talk] 11:11, 19 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 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chill Out Project

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

One of a set of Walled garden articles, of a series of seemingly non-notable compilation albums, all created by the same mostly single-purpose account. These being form the Philippines may cause some problems, but in my before I could find no coverage to suggest these pass WP:NALBUMS. I also can't find anything on the series (The Chillout Project) and so don't think a redirect there would be an appropriate alternative. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the rest of the entries in this series because, as I said above they all were created by the same SPA and all don't appear to suffer the same lack of coverage:
The Lounge Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: House Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: House Sessions 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: Sisters of the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chillout Project: Acid Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Chillout Project (different from The Chill Out Project) is another entry in this series, seemingly the main album article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerryForPerpetuity (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I've just nominated the 5 albums that have articles thus far. As I said in the nom, I couldn't find anything on the series as a whole either so don't imagine it's anymore notable than the albums, but I didn't want to bundle too much in here. Articles for the other two albums (Soundtrack to Modern City Life and The Chillout Project: House Sessions 3 House Sessions 3) were separately redirected to the series article in 2024 and 2013 respectively (See also this 2010 AFD on House Sessions 3). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been unable to find any reliable-source coverage of any of them. GanzKnusper (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I couldn't find sufficient sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 01:40, 18 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Danners430 (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worplesdon railway station

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

Article wholly unsourced Danners430 (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Danners430 (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:BEFORE clearly not followed, see this and this as well. Probably more besides, and I'm going to keep working on it anyway Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the process was followed - I did a search for sources, but as someone who knows very little about this particular area of the country, I was unable to find anything. Thank you for providing the sources that were needed, and which I was unable to find. Danners430 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; Some refs now added, Mattdaviesfsic beat me to it! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:04, 12 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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault

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

WP:NOTNEWS, followup of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia). No evidence that (or reason why) this protest will have more sustained, enduring notability than the countless other protests happening every day and being reported on in news articles. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside comment about the Trump articles in general. Based on Category:Trump family and subcategories therein, I suspect AFD will have numerous Trump-related articles up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article seems properly sourced. I would also support a merge to some relevant article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe an article like sculptures of Donald Trump could make sense? Clearly there is a lot of coverage on the numerous works of art (both positive and negative) which depict Trump. And while the individual pieces might be problematic from a NOTNEWS standpoint, the overall subject of Trump in art almost certainly has encyclopedic value.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Public art depicting Donald Trump," perhaps. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Will anybody remember these that didn't live in Philly or Portland in a week? A month? A year? Grahaml35 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, subject has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 19 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, Indiana

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

Appears to be a rail spot: right now it's overrun by sprawl from Louisville but go back into the 1950s and there's nothing there but the rails. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 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!} 08:32, 12 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 12:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock's magazine

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Comstock's magazine

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

Page was created by an editor with an initial undisclosed conflict of interest (they have since identified themselves as a paid freelancer), and appears to be solely maintained by that editor (who continues to engage in a business relationship with the organization). Company also fails the notability test. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject seems to have some notability however they lack WP:RS to stand, also the article is not written in an encyclopaedic format. Tesleemah (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comstock's magazine has been published monthly for 35 years. A decade ago its 25 anniversary was [recognized] by Doris Matsui in the United States House of Representatives in 2014. It's been written up in major news outlets including The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento Business Journal, The Fresno Bee and Elko Daily Free Press. The website Newspapers.com brings up 535 mentions of the magazine. The magazine's stories have been cited as sources in at least 30 Wikipedia articles. It's a provisional member of the California News Publishers Association and has won awards from that organization along with the Western Publishing Association. All that together makes it meet the notability requirement. Eric Schucht (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Eric Schucht was the creator of the article, and created it without disclosing himself as a paid contributor to Comstock's, which he has since affirmed. Schucht is not an impartial source, which is one element Wikipedia is supposed to weigh when gauging notoriety. Interesting, while he has since affirmed himself to have a conflict of interest, he chose not to disclose his COI when voting to keep the article. Accordingly, his vote should be discarded. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eric was also reprimanded by a Wikipedia editor for disclosing potentially-revealing information about a Wikipedia editor that, if true, would reveal the identity of said editor, in violation of Wikipedia's anti-harassment and anti-doxing policy. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not establish clear notability even after discounting the sources that come from the magazine itself. Article is problematic in too many ways, and its creator and primary editor has apparently engaged in some inappropriate shenanigans. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is a historic magazine, please judge the notability of the subject, not the editor who created the article. If any COI can be remedied by editing than deletion isn't the best solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 7 is fine, but the rest of the wiki article is strictly using the same RS over and over, 20, 22 and 25 are all the Business Journal. Multiple articles in the same publication (while a RS), isn't notable and seems to indicate this is only a local matter. There is no sort of coverage outside of the area of publication... I don't see notability. I also suspect there is PROMO going on with the undisclosed COI editing that was going on. That's also a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 13 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 11:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perukua

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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO/GNG.

Apparent WP:GAMENAME of title (phonetic spelling). See [32] and [33] KH-1 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so many albums but does not seem to have much commercial success. Less than 200 Google Search results for Perukua Less than 70 Google Search results for "Peruquois Frances". This is not someone who is especially popular. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSINGER or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 19 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Beck

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

No indication of meeting WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional. Tagged as problematic for 11 years. Did release an album Ultrafetter Bass in 2023, which has only barely been able to break 1,000 Spotify plays; also, only has a couple hundred followers on Facebook. (These being indicators of non-notability.) Geschichte (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Searched Google News, got three results of only brief mentions. [34] [35] [36] (last article is paywalled but seems to be more about the band]. Also his band Boppin' B does not have a page here. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 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 11:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellbirds

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

Corresponding to the tag that has been sitting on the page for 11 years, it looks like they completely fail WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only four news articles on the band, and each only gives them a mention, no in-depth coverage. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not get close to WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. The references in the article do not establish notability for the band with the scanty discussion of the subject. Mekomo (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but previous commenters need to be less sloppy in their appraisal. This source^[1] from the article can comfortably considered "in-depth coverage". However that is really all I can find. This band appears to be a side-project of some otherwise notable musicians, so perhaps could just be mentioned as such on their individual articles. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bellbirds are in song", Stuff, 2010-10-20, archived from the original on 2017-08-12, retrieved 2024-11-13

Delete: Fails WP:NBAND. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:46, 19 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 12:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this page is nominated, when there are ample amount of third-party secondary sources cited for largest broker in India (Groww). Google search results easily show numerous articles with deep-dive into this unicorn's background, starting from getting funding form Y Combinator to moving past Zerodha and then to be awarded as 'Forbes India Leadership Award 2024' for Promising Startup.--Curvasingh (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Groww is India's largest stock broker right now. There is no point in nominating this page for deletion. Saura376 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC) — Saura376 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources mentioned above may be helpful in determining whether they count or establish notability of the company in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources covering the company. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment - Most of these sources were evaluated in the previous deletion discussion. However, I evaluated them a second time to either confirm that assessment or not.

1. Forbes India is not Forbes. It must be evaluated with care. This reference was previously assessed and I would agree with that assessment. The reference looks like it was written by the company itself based on the details information, quotes, and use of images and infographics that are promotional to the company.

2. LiveMint - I would not consider this source reliable at all. I can go to Fiverr or Upwork and pay to have my own article written for the publication. Not saying this one is, but do not trust a publication that doesn't always differentiate between paid press and organic press. If it is found to be reliable, this particular reference is similar to the Forbes India one above. Tons of quotes and graphics for the company.

3. Times of India - This is a reference published since the last AfD discussion. Clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.

4. Forbes India - This one is similar to the other Forbes India reference. However, the promotional tone appears to be from the publication's own research as to why the company won the award. It also appeared in print version so I would say this would be within the rhelm of ORGCRIT.

5. LiveMint - Same as 2.

6. Economic Times - Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and the first sentence starts with the location the news is coming from, indicating a press release or churnalism.

7. Business Today - Interview which would not meet ORGCRIT

8. Money Control - Same as LiveMint.

I can only see one source that would probably meet ORGCRIT. I also see a heavy push by SPA's and likely COI editors in the previous and current editing. If kept, the page will need cleaned up for NPOV. If deleted, salting may be in order to save time of volunteer editors. If anyone wants to discuss the individual sources assessed above please do so as I may have missed something and will gladly look at any additional information. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 Here is one article from Forbes, not Forbes India -> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/groww-vs-zerodha/ --Curvasingh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. Source is not usable for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many sources from the The Hindu also:

--Curvasingh (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:ROUTINE. We need sources passing WP:ORGCRIT. Please review that guideline and let me know what sources meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After the source assessment and inquiries about additional sources that may meet WP:ORGCRIT, there is only one I see that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 I am not sure how you are passing some information as routine coverage. In some earlier sources, there was extensive profile coverage of Groww. I am starting to think now that few Wikipedia reviewers has some inherent bias and that is why there is Criticism of Wikipedia, which is also why Wikipedia has been involved in lawsuits:-> https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece

The classification of some credible information as non-reliable is not good. Even then I will provide another source from Business Standard :-> https://www.business-standard.com/companies/start-ups/financial-services-startup-groww-moves-domicile-to-india-from-the-us-124051000028_1.html --Curvasingh (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS certainly does not support your keep !vote contention. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing source assessment by CNMall41 and self evaluation of the sources, it is clear that the page fails WP:NCORP and fails all criteria for an organization to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Editors wanting to Keep this article need to respond to User:CNMall41's source analysis which dismisses most of the sources you thought were valid and reliable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another ORG article refbombed to pretend to be notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational as the issues raised in the first and second AFDs remain unresolved. Almost all the sources presented in the previous AFDs are still being presented in this current discussion. Those sources are unreliable. Mekomo (talk) 11:05, 12 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 keep. (non-admin closure)‎ 4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Motutapu (disambiguation)

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

Only two link and a lot of redlink. More at Wikipedia:Disambiguation$Deletion. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very premature proposal for a dab page only created an hour ago. Three blue links, and created to combat confusion between them. As to the other red links, they may well be filled soon. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could not be solved by one hatnote. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid dab page. PamD 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But needs some more blue links added, or redlink-only entries removed. PamD 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the dab page has some links already and it will possibly continue to grow given that this dab is a recent creation. Mekomo (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There's a lot of articles in the DAB Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted KEmel49's close of this, which combined a withdrawal of the nomination in the same edit. Because of this, I reverted as it was an WP:INVOLVED closure and formatted incorrectly. @KEmel49: - please only indicate a withdrawal (if you remain willing to do so), another editor or admin will close as appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Goldsztajn: You need to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Withdrawing a nomination. The nominator's actions appear to have been correct. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Shhhnotsoloud - thanks for the ping. In this case, I saw a number of problems here and elsewhere and felt it was best to encourage the editor to focus on participating in AfD discussions rather than involving themself in other aspects of AfD at this point. FWIW, in regards to withdrawals, I'd argue that there's a potential contradiction between WP:WDAFD and WP:INVOLVED. While it might be less of an issue for experienced editors, to my mind, WDAFD only mentions "may" (not should) and INVOVLED takes precedence as a ~~principle~~ policy to be applied with vigour. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 18 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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. B. Deorah College

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found, so the subject fails to meet GNG, and thus also fails WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gauhati University to which this college is affiliated as WP:ATD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to remove this... Goswami21 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is about an institution which is 40 years old. It looks like it does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts and I believe there are various sources available, which can be considered as Significant coverage. It’s just that the creator didn’t try to find and use them as inline citations.Zuck28 (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: Please provide those Significant coverage sources here, so others can evaluate those sources. GrabUp - Talk 08:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1., 2., 3., 4 Apart from this, I was unable to find other sources, as I am not familiar with Guwahati region media and language.

Zuck28 (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: I really don’t understand how you consider these to be significant coverage. Government and college websites are WP:PRIMARY sources and contribute nothing towards notability. The other two sources you provided are merely passing mentions. You should read WP:SIGCOV to understand what constitutes significant coverage. To meet notability guidelines, the subject should have at least two articles from independent and reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage, not just passing mentions. GrabUp - Talk 09:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged the article with WP:G12 because it was copied from the college’s website. GrabUp - Talk 10:30, 12 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 redirect‎ to Madison, Wisconsin#Parks and recreation. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodman Pool

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

Entirely non-notable location. I both heavily appreciate CyberTheTiger's work to expand coverage of Madison and think it's really cool, but this specific article – while competently made – falls severely short of notability guidelines. The information in it really would be better served as an attraction on the Wikivoyage page for Madison. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madison, Wisconsin#Parks and recreation as a good ATD; an otherwise average public pool. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf: I could go either way for a deletion or simply a redirect. A redirect is inoffensive, and the target you suggested makes perfect sense. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madison, Wisconsin#Parks and recreation per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 19 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 merge‎ to Solo Leveling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solo leveling: Unlimited

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

Insufficient differentiation from parent article Solo Leveling; should be merged into that article. The sources given are also insufficiently reliable and do not prove notability per WP:RS. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Looks like this is a video game? Or a digital business? The crypto-specific websites are bewildering to me, I am not sure what their status would be as RS's. A few of the Korean-language sources are also crypto-focused and therefore probably currently unvetted. Currently, this article is suggesting that the 2018 webtoon is an adaptation, presumably of the 2024 game, which is very odd. Oddities in the writing aside, I'm mostly concerned about the quality of the sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the creator attempted to get this article passed as a draft but was turned down each time. Draft:Solo leveling : Unlimited. Eventually, they went ahead and made it into a full article while skipping draft approval. seefooddiet (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solo Leveling. No differentiable content for it to deserve its own page so a redirect works well enough,

MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with its parent Solo Leveling as the best option to retain some of the information presented here. Mekomo (talk) 11:16, 12 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 05:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chamars

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

The article lacks proper citations and references to support the claims made. Also, some of the member may not belongs to Chamars. Nxcrypto Message 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:RS and even fails to meet general notability guidelines.

Edasf (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it’s premature to nominate this article for deletion since it’s only a day old. A more constructive approach would be to add the relevant issue tags (one which already there), which will inform readers of the areas that need improvement and give the article a chance to be enhanced per WP:AQU, WP:POORLY.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Wikipedia articles have no grandson clause. This could have been created in draft space, and it wasn't, so now it's meeting its fate as it must. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, not mine, not that Wikipedia's either. "That's not how it works," keep in mind there are many ways it can work, and what I suggested is one of them. Draftifying is not a thing of the past, it’s still an option. Also, "delete" is not the only possible outcome in nomination discussions. There are other paths to consider. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article would probably fail NLIST. Per WP:CASTEID, there needs to be self-identification of caste which needs to be reported by reliable sources. It will likely be difficult to find relevant reliable sources that discuss the list topic as a group, especially when many may be discounted due to a lack of self-identification. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected all the information through all the sources and of his book and i clarify that all the peoples in this page belong to chamars and i added all the references so you can check the article and i kindly request you to remove the notice for deletion MY Gohad (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not needed WP:FORK of Chamar. We already have a list of "notable people" in that article. There is no need for separate list.4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 19 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 no consensus‎. There is, again, no consensus to keep, delete, redirect, or merge this article. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Miroshnichenko

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a PR platform. Refbombed spam for non notable individual. Has a massive primary sourced laundry list of so called awards but they are not major awards (or for the most part remotely credible). Last Afd closed no consensus largely on the validity of the Independent Music Awards (IMAs) (now deleted) but they are not a major award and are not even a notable award. None of the many listed charts are GOODCHARTS. Refbombed sources lack independent coverage in reliable sources. Curated by a single SPA who despite being blocked is still updating this PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the International Songwriting Competition confer notability? The article for the award has a few citations to RS calling it "prestigious", mostly the Irish newspaper article... Not sure about notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol 'prestigious' is a word that barely exists outside press releases - if you see it in a news item it's a giveaway that the piece is probably churnalism. Things which are genuinely prestigious (Nobel, Emmy etc.) are never described as 'prestigious'. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP is an Irish newspaper? Good to know! ascap.com/help/music-business-101/songwriting-competitions DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: winning non-notable awards doesn't help notability here. Other than the 2024 "win", this is still the same quality of biography we saw during the last round at AfD. I've read up a bit more on these "awards", they don't seem terribly important. Nor do most of the charted albums/songs hit on charts that we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article about Roman Miroshnichenko is included in The Great Jazz Guitarists encyclopedia, edited by Scott Yanow. --Yakudza (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep In duo with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, Roman Miroshnichenko has won the Best Jazz Award of the USA Songwriting Contest: serious world-class achievement mentioned in the top news of All About Jazz - the largest jazz portal in the world. Also, he is a Guinness Records holder, which is more than a notable award. Along with John Williams, Allan Silvestry, and Hans Zimmer, he was the nominee for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards. Not a big deal, too? He has recorded with the London Symphony at Abbey Road studio, just think for a moment. He is also a Recording Academy/Grammy Voting Member, where only outstanding musicians and experts are allowed. He is the winner of the Film Music Contest, the largest competition in media music in Europe. These are just undeniable facts that can make less fortunate colleagues nervous. All facts are in the public domain.

DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The previous AFD did close a No Consensus which might be the case here, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I do agree that the article is very obnoxious and and been refbombed to hell(98 references!?). It could probably use some work to move towards a more neutral view, to read the article would make you think this guy is one of the best musicians in the world. But I do believe he barely passes GNG. Winning the international songwriting competition and the article in The great Jazz guitarists certainly help, although are not too well known. The fact that he has won so many awards speaks to his notability even though most are quite unknown. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 02:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Winning so many awards speaks more to his entering so many contests and to his skills. Ability does not make one notable unless it receives independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ He has truly made his mark on the music world. Teaming up with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, he recntly won the Best Jazz Award at the USA Songwriting Contest, a big honor that even made headlines on All About Jazz, the world's largest jazz portal. His list of achievements keeps growing: he's a Guinness World Record holder, a Grammy Voting Member, and has even been nomnated for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards alongside John Williams, Alan Silvestri, and Hans Zimmer. He's also recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra at the iconic Abbey Road Studios and took home the top prize in Europe's biggest media music competition - the Film Music Contest. It's safe to say that Miroshnichenko's accomplishments speak for themselves.
DiscursivePraxis (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Not only is voting twice not allowed, editors are not allowed to use block evading socks to vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding 2-3 independent and substantial sources. First, the IMAs web site is no longer in existence, so we can scratch that as a major award. The Global Music Awards are a Pay-Fer award in which everybody seems to win at least bronze, and it runs 4x a year. The HMMA are also pay-fer, and likely self-nomination. The Jazz Corner is a crowd-sourced fan site. Songwriting Competition is another pay-fer. AllAboutJazz site (cited multiple times but not named in citation) allows artists to pay to advertise or have articles about them, for $$. Basically, this guy enters every inexpensive contest, uses all of the available promotion sites. Bravo! as a self-promoter. Lamona (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grasmmy Awards 92.243.182.120 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the winners and nominees of most of the above awards in article are such world stars as Jason Mraz (USASC), Meghan Trainor (USASC), Al Di Meola (USASC), Ian Anderson (USASC), Gino Vanelli (USASC), Jami Alimorad (USASC), Dave Koz, Paul Wertico, George Benson, Foreigner, Hans Zimmer (HMMA), John Williams (HMMA), Alan Silvestri (HMMA), Carlos Santana (HMMA), Lady Gaga (HMMA). Are they "self-nomintaed" and "pay-fer" too? It is also worth noting that the Grammys also have many self-nominated artists and there is an option to pay for entry from 45 to 150 USD depending on the proximity of the deadline. Most of the above awards are listed on ASCAP's list of the most notable and influential music competitions and awards: ascap.com/help/music-business-101/songwriting-competitions

Not to mention the Guinness World Record, the encyclopedia "Great Jazz Guitarists" published by the largest book distributor Hal Leonard and the many celebrities with whom this truly outstanding world-class guitarist performed. (Just a note that this comment was made by User:92.243.182.120. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

The ASCAP page lists "songwriting competitions" which "...provide networking opportunities and inspiration for your work." It says nothing about them being notable, influential, or important. Lamona (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist has more than enough regalia. An article in the encyclopedia "Great Jazz Guitarists" and a Guinness record holder are enough. Not to mention sharing the podium with celebrities as a nominee and winner of significant international music competitions and awards: HMMA, USASC, ISC.

Confirmed on iMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm12855543/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1 92.243.182.120 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, nothing can be confirmed on IMDB - it is not a reliable source. Second, Guinness appears to have given an award for the most guitarists, of which he was one of over 7,000. I do not have the GBR for 2014, but I seriously doubt if he was singled out for mention. The entry in Great Jazz Guitarists shows up in 2 snippets, while (for comparison) Django Reinhardt has 56 snippets. He shared no podium with celebrities, but even if he had notability is not established by who you stand next to. I will also state that while potentially satisfying for the musician, nominations for awards are not generally considered notable. The "Silver" award for the Global Music Awards for 2022 and 2023 have more than 100 silver winners. It isn't clear if there was anyone who applied for this that did not get an award. I still don't see anything that would meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Global Music Awards Gold Medal. Just 9 Winners of hundreds: https://www.globalmusicawards.com/honorees/november-2022

2. HMMA Nominee among celebrities: https://www.allaboutjazz.com/news/roman-miroshnichenko-henrik-andersen-and-trilok-gurtu-nominated-in-the-hollywood-music-in-media-awards/

3. The Great Jazz Guitarists Encyclopedia, edited by one of jazz's most influential historians Scott Yannow, is not pulp fiction. Hal Leonard doesn't do that. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Scott_Yanow

p.s. It is probably necessary to be less superficial and biased. 92.243.182.120 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a winner of made up in one day awards for an up and coming but ultimately never make it to prime time musician. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the entry in the jazz guitarist encyclopedia cited above that is written by Scott Yanow; a notable jazz hitorian. Under WP:5P1 we model our coverage off of published encyclopedias, including specialist encyclopedias. With a published encyclopedia entry on this person, its clearly a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 19 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.

[1] "Bellbirds are in song", Stuff, 2010-10-20, archived from the original on 2017-08-12, retrieved 2024-11-13

[1]