Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 14

< November 13 November 15 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bash Luks

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

Highly dubious notability. Sources seem to be all press releases and promotional interviews. Full of promotion (" Bash Luks is known for singing inspirational and advocacy songs" and trivia (a section on his own description of his tattoos). Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part of a promotional walled garden based on PR. Sources read as pure ridiculously over the top promotion. Not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello duffbeerforme,
    I understand that the sources may seem questionable and not entirely independent. However, I'd like to clarify that I am an editor from Uganda, and those blogs are widely recognized and trusted within the Ugandan media landscape. Bajaj250 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)— Bajaj250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a potential notable musician except that the sources are from gist blogs and interviews, a further research for WP:BEFORE subject is not in verifiable in independent sources, hence subject fail WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk)
  • Keep. Are we looking at the same article and sources? Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Appears to be the primary subject of multiple by-lined articles written in mainstream Ugandan media. The articles used aren't blogs but newspapers and independent online media with editorial oversight. There's no reason to believe that the sources are A. not independent (they have by-lined authors who are journalists) or B. Unreliable (they are from publications with editorial staff). The fact that some of the articles go into trivial content like tattoos is not surprising. This is no different than an entertainment journalist writing about Cher's wigs, or Michael Jackson's nose. Celebrity coverage is often vapid in the press.4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4 You are not identifying which you think are good here so I base this on your comment on the Lot Fire afd. First you say Kampala Dispatch is a reputable newspapers. Is it? A (admittedly quick) google search didn't impress me much on this magazine. Here one writer has five articles on him with overly promotional language. "The composition not only highlights the duo’s musical prowess but also showcases their artistic vision, appealing to both their established fan base and new audiences seeking innovative sounds. The song serves as a testament to Bash Luks and Off Ryine’s steadfast commitment to their craft, setting a commendable standard for their forthcoming releases." Looking at their entertainment section it appears he is their only writer. and He's praising Big Size Entertainment in glowing terms in September 2024 [1], how they are "championing local talent while highlighting the rich diversity of Uganda’s musical traditions." despite being shut down in 2018. Next came Tower Post. [2]. More than one writer but there does not seem to be many articles in this publication. Only ten in the last year, half being for Lot Fire artists. "The visuals are equally awe-inspiring, captured and directed by Almagic Uganda. The video showcases Jim Siizer relishing the breathtaking outdoor scenery alongside stunning models." "Through his music, Jim Siizer seeks to initiate a thoughtful discussion about the diverse attitudes towards homosexuality and the implications they hold in different societies. The song serves as a platform to address the complexities surrounding this topic, fostering a broader understanding of the cultural differences and social norms that shape these contrasting views." That's not independent journalism. Next News Ghana (of Michelle Tyson fame). [3] no byline. "His exceptional musical talent and unwavering ambition provide him with the necessary tools to ascend to the pinnacle of success." PR blurb. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kampala Dispatch and The Tower Post have an editorial staff and a staff of independent journalists. Generally when we evaluate magazines and newspapers that is what we look for. Critical assessments can be positive; because after all they are the opinions of the critic writing the piece. Most small papers only have on-staff entertainment journalist/critic, so its not surprising they have the same author. You of course are free to disagree, but I would suspect that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would support that the articles are indeed independent given they have by-lined authors and they are local media with staffed editors and journalists. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard tested with the prose from these sites. I'll order the popcorn, will I? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, could you point us towards Kampala Dispatch's editorial staff? Thanks. And then have you found any other journalists they have other than Michael Wandati. In any section, not just entertainment. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reply so have, as suggested, gone to RSN. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 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.

Nicholas Sulentic

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

Biography of a businessperson, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. The attempted notability claim here is that he owned local businesses, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but the only footnotes provided are a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a government report and a very short blurb in the nearest bigger-city newspaper to his hometown upon his death, neither of which are substantive enough to get him over GNG. (There was also a stack of primary sources contextlessly listed under the references section without actually being used to footnote anything in the article body, which aren't support for notability and which I've removed on WP:ELNO grounds.)
While this isn't a deletion rationale per se, it also warrants note (because it speaks to how much traffic and maintenance this is getting) that even though he lived and worked and died in Waterloo, Iowa, the article has spent six years incorrectly wikilinking to Waterloo, Ontario instead of Iowa, and the name of his department store ("Pinkerton's") was also incorrectly wikilinked to Pinkerton, Ontario despite that place having nothing to do with Nicholas Sulentic (or either of the Waterloos) either. And furthermore, there was an obvious conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was Tsulentic, indicating a member of the subject's own family.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Days

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

References do not prove the significance of the film. There are no references at all in Russian Wikipedia. There are also no awards or professional reviews.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:19, 31 October 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 October 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NFILM indicates that a film can be considered notable if it is considered a major part in the career of a notable film personality; this is, as one of the sources on the page indicates, one of the most notable roles of Vera Alentova in her acting debut; it is also a noted role in the career of Nikolay Olyalin (again, a source is on the page); it is also, it goes without saying, a work that features significant involvement of its director, Nikolai Litus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I just don't find coverages or even critical reception that suggest passing of WP:NFILM. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. This exactly is the problem with this entry, there's just nothing to write about this film that would require a standalone page, whether it features significant involvement by a notable person or not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you but, in this case, are you opposed to a redirect and merge to the page about Litus? And don't you thing adding the cast and the plot there would clutter up the biography? If you think that's OK I can support that solution too. But allow me to insist that the film is noted as an important part in the career of the 2 actors mentioned above as well. Also, coverage related to Alentova in Страсть (2009) (Эксмо) and Вера Алентова. Москва слезам не верит.... (2017) (Алгоритм) and a whole entry about the film in Жизнь замечательных времен: шестидесятые. 1966. Том III. (2022) (ЛитРес), p. 487 (2 paragraphs) At least. Mushy Yank (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank I am not opposed to a redirect (targeting Nikolai Litus). But I don't think merging contents from this article with any of the actors would make sense, so I am opposed to that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (but then I suppose you agree that merging would "clutter up the biography"... which makes the concerned NFILM criterion rather more valid imv.). Mushy Yank (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the age of the film, I would expect sources on this work to predominantly be offline. In searching in Russian and Ukranian, I'm getting hits in google books in film reference works, but unfortunately they aren't viewable. It could be there is significant coverage in those materials. I would imagine that Soviet era media would have covered the film, but accessing newspaper archives of the Soviet Union era is difficult. Given that both the director and star of the film are independently notable, I would hesitate to delete an article on the film. I think its likely SIGCOV exists offline.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see that 4meter4 hasn't gone so far as to record their argument as a keep !vote, but I find it persuasive enough, along with Mushy Yank's comments. If there is some reason why this would be harmful to keep around -- eg, if we don't have any content that meets WP:V -- then I think we could argue for deletion, but seeing none I don't see any strong reason not to keep this stub. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment Asilvering. I only vote keep at AFDs when I actually have located significant coverage which is why I am abstaining from voting in this discussion at present. Let's just say this in not an article I would have brought to AFD.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First, I don't see it covered anywhere as "flying days" - it's Dni lyotnye in IMDB, and I suppose the article creator did a translation. It does not appear to have been issued as "flying days" anywhere in the West. Second, famous actors/directors or not, if there are no sources that we can evaluate, then there isn't much for this article to stand on. I do note that the article for Nikolai Litus doesn't mention this film, and if someone reads enough Russian to find a suitable source it could be listed here. Note also that the article on Vera Alentova, while it names this film in her filmography, it does not say anything about it in the body of the article; it does not call this a "notable role." Lamona (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the books mentioned here (by me) and the article quoted on the page say that it is one of Alentova's best-known roles. (Yes, it's in Russian). But you are, I find, correct regarding the fact that the article should be renamed Dni lyotnye The article about the director does not mention the film, again, that's correct (hence my mention of a merge). -Mushy Yank. 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Stava Stensnes

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

Subject is not notable as a chess player. No chess titles, no tournament wins, rank 1479 in Norway and 198485 in the world. Quale (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Ali Zaidi

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

This bio clearly fails GNG, but instead of taking it to AFD, I draftified it to give the creator a chance to get it approved through AFC review. However, they reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. Those arguing to keep it based on WP:ANYBIO #1 should also understand that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to login to your account (not a new user who immediately finds AfD)/ no contributions outside this AfD) than presenting your biased opinions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears, While I personally don’t appreciate votes by IPs in AFDs, even when they share the same opinion as mine, but this vote do raise valid concerns that you need to counter if you want to keep this BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: BLP? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears, My mistake—I meant to say "bio". — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I make unintentional mistakes too. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The IP is referring to President (corporate title) which is completely different from Chancellor (education) – President (education). The subject in question served as the chancellor i.e President (education). If you don't know the differences, please don't waste time of other AfD participants. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TheBirdsShedTears, I get that university presidents are usually seen as notable, but this guy's background as a soldier rather than an academic makes it a bit questionable. No? Just because he was president of a military university doesn’t mean he’s made any significant academic contributions. PS. I am glad you took the IP to task! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fear that the sources and article may not have been fully reviewed. The subject also held a notable role at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, which I feel adds to his notability. From what I understand, my challenge to the draftification may have been taken personally, which could be why it went to AfD without a neutral or closer review. I'm not against taking this article to AfD; my concern is about questionable review. It TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems that when you nominate an article for AfD, there is often strong advocacy against retention, which may come across as challenging the "keep" votes, and influencing other editors, potentially harming WP:CON. (see this, this, this, this, this, and this.........) I'm a bit concerned that this approach might be affecting the neutrality of discussions. The best practice is to review the article and the provided sources very closely, then describe the issue at the time of AfD nomination and let the community decide the fate of AfDed articles. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TheBirdsShedTears, I think the AGF factor is missing here and I believe this discussion is going off track. Instead of focusing on the subject, you're discussing me and my behavior in this AFD, which isn't the right forum for that. But since you asked, let me clarify: when someone makes a WP:ATA or when someone with a questionable editing history - yes, I said questionable editing history - !votes to change the outcome of an AFD, I feel it’s necessary to counter them. That’s not a bad thing, is it? That said, if you believe this AFD is unjustified, you still have time to explain why it should be kept. If it's based on GNG, please provide links to coverage that establish WP:N. If it falls under some SNG, please clarify that. I hope it’s not NACADEMIC, as I’ve raised concerns about that. And being the Head of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad doesn’t inherently make someone WP:N either; they still need to meet some criteria. You must know better, don’t you? PS. this might be my last comment on this AFD to allow you and others to decide its fate. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to XII Corps (Pakistan). Zaidi does not appear to have commanded in combat, which might attract notable sources; and is not on the unbroken commander's list at II Corps (Pakistan). He is on the list for commanding XII Corps from May 1987 to Aug 1989 (unsourced, however). A note could be added to the XII Corps page to say that in 1989 Zaidi took over the senior military academic staff post, and then died 2020. That would allow that mention to be used as a seed for any future addition of reliable sources to recreate the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There’s one reliable source, which isn’t enough for significant coverage. I won’t oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am a bit puzzled by this AfD. The subject served as a president of the National Defence University, Pakistan. President in this case is referring to the highest-ranking officer within the academic administration of a university. WP:NPROF criterion 6 says that The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. This unarguably tells us that this subject is clearly notable under WP:NACADEMIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ondo State Youth Network

[edit]


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

The article lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The sources mainly report routine activities or brief mentions, without showing the organization's substantial impact. Without stronger reliable and secondary sources, it does not meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the above you referred to, I can't find an headline nor an endorsement from the PRO. That was just an opinion gathered from youths in Ondo State if you cross-examine the source I cited critically. By recognized, I meant the umbrella registered body for youth in Ondo State is OSYN and they serve as a bridge between youth and Ondo State Government as seen here and here. Kamoranesi90 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t want this discussion to be more than it should be but when I said, press release, I am referring to this guide: WP:PRSOURCE. As you have shown above, the sources that validates the existence of this organisation are all press releases or are passing mention (see WP:CORPDEPTH). Serving as a bridge between the youths and the government is not and has never been a criteria for inclusion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the subject played significant impact representing youth in Ondo State to meet WP:GNG Albakry028 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Albakry028 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment: It is very imperative I mention that two of these !voters who opined keep are clearly canvassed users. The author of the article has a very good conflict of interest they aren’t disclosing, and they are likely in charge of recruiting users to come !vote a keep. The first keep !voter made their last edit to English Wikipedia on 9 October 2024 and suddenly came to vote a keep at AfD on 8 November. The second keep !voter has never !voted in an AfD since they joined in 2021 until now, and have never done so again. I have gone ahead to tag the !votes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This particular youth organization fails WP:GNG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. The Vanguard and The Nation sources are not independent of the organization. The third and fourth source cited in the article are not about the organization. Simply urging the governor of their state to address rising insecurity and appoint a younger running mate are not enough reasons to make this particular organization notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Vanguard (Nigeria) and The Nation (Nigeria) are major newspapers in Nigeria. That's like calling The Washington Post not independent of the organizations it writes on. They are clearly both independent of the subject, and providing independent secondary news coverage of the organization.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those particular sources are not independent of the subject. The entire text of those articles contain quotes from members of the organization. How are they independent? Its obvious that Vanguard and The Nation interviewed members of the organization and quoted them.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The COI oozing around this article (at least from my investigation at Wikimedia Commons), coupled with the fact that this "network" fails WP:ORGCRIT. I'm not seeing the substantial coverage required for a subject to have a standalone entry in the cited sources. A cursory search did not help either. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to ignore some comment you made here seeing how you and about three other editors had constantly insulted my person on the Wikimedia Nigeria User Group which I had endured, overlooked and dymystified for peace(I might take it up to the safety team later actually) but it seems you also have ulterior motive here and I have to speak up before other editors or administrators think this is true.
If you checked previous articles I had created in the past, while my major contributions are focused on Nigerian Projects, I don't have a particular niche I focused on. I am currently refurbishing Azaiki Public library while for the past two days, I have been cleaning up different articles. So what do you mean by COI?
I also put up a disclaimer on my userpage already to attest that I don't create article for anyone or any organisation which you copied recently and added to your own page. so what else do you expect from me?
I am honestly lost at what you meant by recent happenings on Wikicommon as I only have one account and I can't remember the last time I uploaded on Wikicommon. The last time I did was when I led the Project, Wiki and Health articles in Nigeria so what do you mean by happenings on Wikicommon?
If other editors are making disruptive edits on articles I created, how is this my fault or related to me when Infact Wikipedia and its sister projects are open to all? Please hold these individual responsible if these actions are not signed by me.
And if this article is too soon, then it's ok for it to be deleted, my overall goal is to document as many notable articles here as I see a lot of articles around Nigeria are still absent on Wikipedia. Tesleemah (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tesleemah I will drop you a message (of advice? for your own good?) when I have the time, especially as this AfD is going to probably close soon. Selah! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this discussion was not closed even though the consensus (to me) was clear. Pray tell, who are those four editors from Nigeria insulting your person that you are planning on writing to T&S about? I know that this is an inappropriate venue to discuss this further but please, focus on the discussion and stop ad hominem arguments. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The sourcing here isn't as bad as some of the voters waging a war on coi editing are claiming. There clearly is some mainstream Nigerian media coverage on this organization such as in Vanguard and The Nation. However, in my opinion the sourcing just falls short of WP:ORGCRIT; partly because the majority of the sources are not sufficiently in-depth, and partly because they are chronologically too close together to prove long-term significance. Ultimately, I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the organization may become notable if there is one or two more pieces of WP:SIGCOV over the next year or two.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Since the bone of contention here is the lack of WP:CORPDEPTH which makes the article to fail the notability guideline for Wikipedia. Therefore, I did a source assessment table for all the sources.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/05/2024-ondo-youth-group-wants-dep-gov-slot-in-apc-pdp/amp/5d No It is a press release and full of the comments of the subject's PRO Yes Though, Vanguard is known for the publication of puff pieces but this is not one of them. No Lacked the information that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization ✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/ondo-youths-urge-gov-aiyedatiwa-to-address-rising-insecurity/ No It is a press release telling government what to do over a periodic event Yes It is a reliable news media in Nigeria No The subject is not the main focus of the article and the information provided is nothing than it's name ✘ No
https://independent.ng/breaking-futa-postgraduate-student-breaks-new-record-for-longest-speech-marathon/ No The article is not about the subject. It is about its PRO reading marathon Yes It is a reliable news media in Nigeria No There was not even a pass mention of the subject ✘ No
https://punchng.com/futa-student-sets-new-record-for-longest-speech-marathon/ No The article is not about the subject. It is about its PRO reading marathon Yes It is a reliable national daily in Nigeria No No element of a pass mention ✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/ondo-guber-ondo-youths-ask-aiyedatiwa-ajayi-to-pick-young-running-mates/ No It is a press release asking the government to pick a running mate. The statement was issued by their coordinator Yes It is a reliable news media No It doesn't provide deep or significant coverage on the overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization ✘ No
https://gazettengr.com/stakeholders-in-ondo-harp-on-sex-education-for-children/ No The source is a good source but has nothing to do with the subject of this article Yes It is from a reliable news media in Nigeria No No element of even a pass mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Marketing Association

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

Declined prod. A search for sources found nothing indepth. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahvaz TV

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

WP:N. All of the references here are part of Iranian government propaganda "news agencies". e.g. The biggest source is Tasnim that belongs to IRGC. Ladsgroupoverleg 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Soldier (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND, failing to meet a single item of that policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horrie Seden

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

Based on 1 primary source. A search for sources found 1 darts related article in google news, and 1 line mentions in google books. LibStar (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Oxford Companion to Australian Sport (1994, Oxford University Press, page 6) does have coverage of him in its entry on "Aborigenes in Sport" naming him specifically as an notable Aborigene athlete. There is also some coverage of him on page 2 in his more major competitions. There is a biographical entry of him in Aboriginal and Islander Sports Hall of Fame (1996, Allen & Unwin) which has biographies on all the athletes inducted into the Aboriginal and Islander Sports Hall of Fame up until the year of publication. I would consider him notable based on this last honor.4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the descriptive you used is an extremely offensive term, Aboriginal is the better term and with preference to identify what country or cultures a person is connected to. Gnangarra 14:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting the source. Don’t blame me. That’s literally the name used in the encyclopedia entry’s title. I’m not going to misrepresent sources and change text or titles.4meter4 (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? We just presented three scholarly works with significant coverage. You obviously don’t understand WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazil tornadoes in 2024

[edit]
List of Brazil tornadoes in 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDATABASE and is highly incomplete with no signs of any work being done. Would also support a merge into Tornadoes of 2024, as has been discussed. Since the merge request has been open for 13 days with almost zero responses, I'll start this. EF5 22:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tornadoes of 2024, add into respective months. Procyon117 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallifrey

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

Following my recent Skaro nom, I'm also nominating Gallifrey as well. I took a more in-depth look at Gallifrey as, unlike, Skaro, it was mentioned a lot more in sources, requiring a more exhaustive look to pick apart the trivial mentions from actual analysis.

News sources only turned up plot recaps or mentions of media that featured Gallifrey as a location (With a few minor bits of trivia thrown in between).

Scholar, including a peruse through the Wikipedia Library, turned up a few hits, but all of them only had Gallifrey in the title, and barely mentioned it within the text, or only did so in terms of plot recap, context information, or trivial mentions. One source mentioned Gallifrey extensively, but this was due to it covering Gallifrey Base and Gallifrey One, fansites that take Gallifrey's name but do not themselves give notability to Gallifrey due to having no correlation beyond naming.

Books turned up similarly, also pulling up a Gallifrey Base/Gallifrey One source, but did pull up one actually good hit of WP:SIGCOV in the form of the book "Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations: A Critical Approach to Doctor Who," which covers Gallifrey's society in an analytical manner for a few pages. This was the only hit I found, however, and every other book source was official material, trivial mentions, or only being mentioned as part of background or plot recap.

Given there is only one piece of actual coverage, and the rest of the sources either fall under WP:NOTPLOT or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, I don't believe this subject meets the WP:GNG. It has a viable AtD in the form of Time Lord, the species who hails from Gallifrey and is heavily associated with it in-canon, but it doesn't seem to have any individual notability separate from any other facet of the show. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the scope of Doctor Who fandom, the BEFORE as articulated above is simply not credible. Of course RS'es exist beyond what the nom portrays, GNG is met, etc. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I should probably elaborate a bit. Nom cites NOTPLOT when discussing sources. That's a critical party foul here, because an RS that summarizes a work of fiction is in the process being transformative and hence secondary: Plot summaries count towards notability. NOTPLOT applies only to how we describe fictional elements on Wikipedia--that is, not entirely in universe. A non-Wikipedia page can't fail NOTPLOT because NOTPLOT only applies to Wikipedia itself. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very confused as to what kind of point you're trying to say here. Yes, NOTPLOT covers how we describe them on site... but how is an all-plot summary source going to change that? It's still running afoul of NOTPLOT because the Wikipedia article is still entirely plot, even with a citation. Your definition of NOTPLOT does not align with what the policy is actually saying: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
    Additionally, your original argument before your clarification is entirely a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument by dismissing my entire nomination on the grounds that there must be something else. I've given a summary of my BEFORE, and if you feel it's still inadequate, then feel free to do a search of your own to double check my findings, but dismissing the nom without any actual grounding is just bad play. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be clear: your misunderstanding of NOTPLOT demonstrates, within itself, the incompetence of your nomination. You yourself said, in part rest of the sources either fall under WP:NOTPLOT. Full stop: Sources can't fail NOTPLOT. Plot summaries are transformative, and a non-trivial, independent, reliable source consisting solely of plot summary is an appropriate RS that contributes to notability. The fact that a Wikipedia article wouldn't be appropriate if ONLY plot summary does nothing to stop any number of such sources from contributing to notability. Thus, I AGF that you are sufficiently mistaken to genuinely think you did a decent job of BEFORE, rather than actively malicious, because you freely admit you saw and discarded multiple sources that contribute to notability. I don't have to prove which sources these were: you acknowledged they existed in your nomination. Thus SOURCESMUSTEXIST isn't a proper characterization of anything I've said: You yourself said in your original nomination there were a sufficient number of adequate sources to establish notability, only (again, reading it in a charitablie light) failed to recognize them as such. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether pure plot summaries demonstrate notability is an academic point, since we would need other sources to write an article that does not run afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. A seasoned editor surely understands this (as indeed you seem to), and an actual WP:AGF reading of the nomination would read it in that light. TompaDompa (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one clearly appropriate source in the nom, and one from Daranios below, so GNG is met and all those "NOTPLOT sources" [sic] are perfectly good sources with which to flesh out an article on a fictional topic. Jclemens (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but that (there are other sources that are usable, so we can use the plot summaries in addition to flesh out the article) is a different point from the one you made previously (plot summaries themselves demonstrate notability). If you are to be charitable when you disagree with someone, that means arguing against the strongest possible version of their argument. That's not what you did originally. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel you're overlooking the fact that NOTPLOT outright states that what you're arguing for does not overrule NOTPLOT. To cite NOTPLOT in a bit more depth: "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." NOTPLOT requires the content to be more multifaceted than just plot summary. Being verifiable doesn't automatically make a subject notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to muddle the difference between sources and our presentation. Only once we've ascertained that a topic is notable--and this is, as noted in my comment above this of the same datestamp--do we worry about how to assemble a fictional article. We can do so from sources that don't contribute to notability. The plethora of all-plot sources is only a problem if you think 1) DUE demands proportional coverage for such sources, and 2) NOT outranks NPOV. That's a different discussion. Jclemens (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Time Lord; most of the article is about Time Lords as well (and most of the plot is similar between the two), and anything that is not can be inserted in a new section, perhaps 'Planet'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who Is The Doctor 2: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who has a two-page chapter "Psychic Papers: Gallifrey" with commentary on the how, why, and impact of the presentation of Gallifrey, plus some similar commentary focussed solely on the episode "Hell Bent". Which I guess would work equally well as commentary on Gallifrey as a setting of Time Lord society or Time Lord society located on Gallifrey. Daranios (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios it's a decent source, but the bulk of it is not really describing Gallifrey, and instead discussing Time Lord society and how it has changed throughout the show. Gallifrey is referred to only in terms of the setting of stories covering Time Lords, used as an umbrella term to refer to the Time Lords, or only referred to in a summary of plot developments or a synopsis of given events. Nearly everything about this coverage has an intrinsic tie to Time Lords, and strengthens the rationale that Gallifrey isn't really individually separate from Time Lords. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first time you've decided a source is inappropriate because it covers a slightly different facet or phrasing of a topic. That's not how DUE works; we don't get to call some sources on a topic in or out of bounds--that is us sitting in judgment on reliable sources, when the policies demand that the RS'es shape our coverage. Jclemens (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If topic X is exclusively or predominantly covered by sources in the context of topic Y, that is fairly strong evidence that topic X is better treated as an aspect of topic Y rather than a separate topic altogether. WP:PAGEDECIDE, not WP:DUE, is the most relevant to this. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Time Lord or keep. I think with the two sources + many more with the listed drawbacks it would be possible to write a non-stubby article which also fullfills WP:NOTPLOT. And some commentary, like the wow-effect of letting Gallifrey appear in the show and connected risks will be a bit akward to incorporate into the suggested target. On the other hand I agree that most commentary on Gallifrey is linked to its population/society, so there would be overlap between those two articles. Daranios (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time Lord per above; all sources on the planet double up on discussing the species and society it was home to. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Time Lord - The planet and its history is already covered extensively on the Time Lord article, and any sourced information from this article that is missing there, that isn't just overly detailed plot information, can be merged over. As mentioned above, the topic of the Time Lords and their home world are so intertwined in sources that, per WP:NOPAGE, it makes far more sense for them to be covered together here. Rorshacma (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all. This is another minor topic that sources cover in the context of an existing topic. I don't believe there is WP:SIGCOV for a separate article, and either way, the topic is best covered under one article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Cook

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

Driver fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, having mainly contested low-level domestic championships (state Formula Ford, hillclimbing, national Production Cars) and not achieved notable success in international/higher-level series (British FFord, AUSCAR). Whilst the article appears to be well sourced on the surface, most of the sources direct to a websites' home page rather than an article – a quick internet search for "Brendon Cook racing driver" also brings up routine database sites and Wikipedia, therefore a lack of SIGCOV. Furthermore, I have reason to believe that User:Bjcook, the article creator, is the subject of the article and therefore in violation of WP:COI. MSportWiki (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you haven't read the whole article. You will see a search on "Brendon Cook racing driver" is pretty useless. In the references from other editors, you will see he has gone by the name of BJ Cook, Brendon & Brendan (I assume spelt incorrectly or reverts in spell check).
Looking at other interests, he played Rugby League internationals 1992 Pacific Cup and games in the New Zealand provincial rugby championship with Manawatu which included a game against the British & Irish Lions according the Its Rugby profile. He is also the son of a former NRL player.
In cricket he played one international game in the 2001 Pacifica Cup (date of birth the same in cricketarchive.com profile).
Perhaps the article needs a bit of re-wording to imply that his major achievements were not in motorsport. NigelPorter (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply playing international rugby league and cricket matches for minnow teams doesn't meet notability requirements as there is no indication of success. Having kinship with a National Rugby League player is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Combined with the lack of proper sourcing, it is a self-promotional piece at best. MSportWiki (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your personal opinion. No body else has raised this since the article came about in 2006. If you have a personal agenda to delete this I'm not going to change your mind. Just by your name MSportWiki you consider yourself the oracle for Motorsport here. So who is anyone to question you. NigelPorter (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're being very presumptive with statements such as "Just by your name MSportWiki you consider yourself the oracle for Motorsport here", which isn't useful to the discussion. Do you have a COI with this article? MSportWiki (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no COI with the article. NigelPorter (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on the article and its sourcing, not each other. The topic is whether or not we have sources that can establish this subject's notability. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think he used to go by BJ Cook when he raced. He also entered cars in the Production Car Championship with other drivers in them. He ran the Revolution Racegear store in Sydney for ages. So entrenched in the motorsport scene. But does that mean you need a wiki page? Probably need to re-configure article if going to keep.Greg Nail (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home Town Hero

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, other than a biography ([4]) and an album review ([5]) by AllMusic, which isn't a lot. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Under the Influence of Giants, since three of the members were in both bands. toweli (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Shahani

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

Entirely promotional and unsourced Amigao (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Aarab

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

Not sure how this passed AfC. Almost certainly a promotional hoax. All the sources cited in the article are dead and likely never existed. This "singer" doesn't have a single video/song on Youtube or any other platforms. There is 0 coverage of him, and I searched his name looking for both coverage in Arabic and French. Mooonswimmer 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Mooonswimmer Did you try searching in Arabic? I don't think it is a hoax as this link popped up when I searched using his Arabic name: [13]. He clearly is a real musician since his albums have a discogs listing. Whether he is notable is another matter.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, I'm not sure this is the same artist. That complicates matters in sourcing content.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: I'd like to apologize if my reply came off as rude, blunt, or dismissive. I responded to your comment before seeing your follow-up reply. I appreciate the WP:BEFORE diligence. Mooonswimmer 10:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The musician in the Discogs listing is clearly not the 20-year-old Riffian singer-songwriter and producer the article is supposedly about. Mooonswimmer. Yes, I did search in Arabic. Nothing at all. 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”

    — KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins
    Conoys redirects to Piscataway people
    looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [20]
    The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.
    The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [21]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.
    The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.
    Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?
I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPathtalk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page, because no single redirect target is satisfactory. Most of the article as written (really more of a school essay than anything) covers the whole experience of the colonization of the Americas by settlers from Asia thousands of years ago. But the object, and the last couple of sections, seems to have been to describe the native people who lived in the Kanawha Valley before it was settled by Europeans. Those were decidedly not Piscataway, even though the word "Kanawha" may have been used at one point synonymously with "Piscataway" and perhaps derived from "Conoy". Our article about the Piscataway seems to exclude any possibility that they ever lived in the Kanawha Valley, and that alone would confuse readers who come across this title.
At the same time, I cannot determine whether there is any other article on a group of American Indians who would be described this way, and be the definitive redirect target: the last major groups who might have inhabited the Kanawha Valley would be the Fort Ancient culture and the Shawnee, who may or may not have been identical (evidently that has not yet been determined). But the degree to which the Kanawha Valley was inhabited, rather than merely transited during this period is also unclear; most archaeological sites are older and probably date to the time of the Mound Builders, a vague term which in this case really refers to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. All of these would correctly be described as "Kanawha people", and it is not unlikely that some readers would also expect this title to describe the later, European settlers of the valley, including but not limited to modern-day Kanawha County, another possible redirect target.
Since all of these are plausible targets, and the article contains almost nothing that is not already in one or more of them, the best way to resolve the issue is to convert this into a disambiguation page—either one that strictly follows the normal disambiguation page criteria, or perhaps a more narrative one that explains how the phrase might apply to different but related groups—including the Piscataway, of course, but certainly not redirecting to them, since that would likely astonish most readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no disagreement with this proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Singapore Twenty20 International cricketers as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aahan Gopinath Achar

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria Shrug02 (talk) 17:31, 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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Puri

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:25, 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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koken Kuroki

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

This footballer would not even meet the old "professional" guideline. He played in the leagues of Macedonia (60 minutes), Malta, Oman and Georgia and the second league of Bulgaria. No significant and independent coverage (including the ja:wiki) to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 17:15, 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 delete‎. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Ge'ez

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

Term does simply not exist.--Hellenyck (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we read those. They don’t support what you are saying. Kaplan for example uses the term Agaw dialect on page 103 (and states outright that scholarship almost unanimously has concluded the Beta Israel never spoke or possessed a knowledge of Hebrew); basically saying exactly the opposite of what you are claiming here. None of them use the term “Judeo-Ge'ez“. FYI, the whole point of Kaplan’s paper is that the Beta Israel people never had access to the Hebrew literature but rather derived their literature from Christian documents that were brought into the region. (Read the conclusion) It’s funny that you are putting Kaplan forward as supporting an uninterrupted Hebraic tradition when fundamentally his paper is about dismissing that entirely as false.4meter4 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Original research. I wouldn't call it "fake" so much as an original framing. Beta Israel is a real people group and they did speak Ge'ez with their own dialect. The first source is pretty clear to call it the "Agaw dialect" and doesn't use the term "Judeo-Ge'ez". It’s looks like this article is re-naming the Agaw dialect "Judeo-Ge'ez" without any supporting sources for that re-naming. But, it isn't all that odd of a re-naming considering the Agaw people were Ethiopian Jews who had their own dialect of Ethiopian speech.4meter4 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt say sources are fake. I say refs are fake, because sources cited do not support article text. --Altenmann >talk 22:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agaw: not exactly so: our Agaw people article says that "have practiced what some described as a “Hebraic religion”, though some also practiced Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and many were Beta Israel Jews", i.e., they should not be conflated. --Altenmann >talk 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann That could be, I'm not a subject matter expert in this area. I'm just pointing out that the source in question was describing the Beta Israel people as speaking the "Agaw dialect" which impacted the Ge'ez language writings extant to that culture. The article in question seems to be re-naming this dialect Judeo-Ge'ez rather than calling it the Agaw dialect as in the cited source. Hence why I am calling it WP:OR. The ins and outs of language within the Ethiopian Jewish culture may be more complex than what that single source presented, and I'm sure the Agaw people may have been more religiously diverse and that is fine. FYI refs = sources. You meant citations. Hence my confusion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ezra_Ben_Yosef for expert's opinion (as much as wikipedians are experts :-)) on the issue. --Altenmann >talk 01:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You meant citations - Well, Wikipedia thinks refs = citations :-) and technically speaking sources are referents, i.e., things you are referring to. --Altenmann >talk 02:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. We tend to use terms somewhat interchangeably on wikipedia. :-) Technically references are works listed at the end of an article outside of a footnote format (see https://www.cwauthors.com/article/key-differences-between-a-citation-and-a-reference ). Wikipedia's somewhat unusual referencing style makes it possible to blend the two by putting the entire reference inside an embedded footnote. This is different than the standard referencing format in academic publishing, which is why I prefer Template:Sfn citations as they mirror academic publication styles more closely. In my mind I think of "references" as the "complete source information" (such as a bibliography or works cited list) and the citation as stating where certain content came from within that source. When I hear "false reference" it makes me think the entire source is made up, where as if I hear "false citation" I would think someone is not being truthful about where the content came from by misrepresenting the cited source. But that's just me. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation makes sense, thanks. --Altenmann >talk 02:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are overlooking the essential point: Judaeo-Ge'ez (a language that the user believes to be descended from Hebrew) does not exist and has never existed. The term was simply invented by the user (WP:NOR).--Hellenyck (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um… that is exactly what I said, but in different words.4meter4 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a Eurocentric Ezra Ben Yosef (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you are a liar peddling a WP:HOAX at worse or non-published WP:FRINGE theory at best. Misrepresenting sources and using citations that don’t support the content is unethical.4meter4 (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, plain and simple. Sinclairian (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there are no sources that support the name, then it can't be used. That's pretty elementary wikicraft. Zerotalk 05:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to be the correct name or information and misquotes sources; could be a hoax of sorts. Andre🚐 18:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NFT and WP:OR, never mind Ezra Ben Yosef's other conduct, all of which just earned him a two week block. As mentioned in the ANI complaint cited above, people are going to have to go through his editing history to see what other sources he misrepresented and facts he just made up. Ravenswing 14:03, 21 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 procedural close‎. The prior nomination for deletion only closed a few hours before this. Please see WP:RENOM. Malinaccier (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See the previous nomination - consensus was drawn-out but of the four editors involved three were in favor of deletion on grounds of Original Research, alternatively creating a new page with a new focus similar to this, with the problem boiling down to it not being marked whether any mesoscale discussion is considered "mesogamma" - each item on the list has to be determined by a Wikipedia editor. Departure– (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Skynxnex here: I'm not sure why you decided to bring this to AfD less than 90 minutes after it was closed. Procyon117 (talk) 17:17, 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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Torres Carrillo

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources Demt1298 (talk) 15:54, 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.

Portable object (computing)

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

I'm really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. This is an WP:IAR closure in the interests of not wasting the community's time. The arguments to delete or draftify are substantially stronger; nobody arguing to keep this has shown hard evidence of the topic meeting WP:GNG independent of the parent article. However, the topic is a cricket tournament beginning in 10 days in a country where cricket is popular. A delete/draftify outcome will be contested, and recreation is inevitable, quite possibly at a bad title if this is draftified. Once the tournament begins, GNG will probably be met immediately; on the off-chance that it isn't, we can revisit this. As such this closure is explicitly without prejudice to a future AfD: but this discussion isn't presently a good use of community time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nepal Premier League

[edit]
2024 Nepal Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this upcoming season actually passes WP:GNG, and so a separate season article is not required. All useful information is being captured in Nepal Premier League main article, this is a needless WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL. It's WP:TOOSOON for an article. The season may become notable, but the sourcing isn't going to be there until the season is happening and coverage emerges. I think the season is likely going to be notable, so moving to draft is the best option at present. Once enough significant coverage is added it can be moved back into main space.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose the deletion of this article. The inaugural season of the 2024 Nepal Premier League (NPL) is a significant milestone in Nepal's cricket history, warranting its own article. Dismissing its notability undermines the cultural and sporting impact of the NPL, which is Nepal's premier cricket tournament. Reliable sources have been added in the league extensively, satisfying WP:CFORK, and preserving this article ensures proper documentation of Nepal's cricketing heritage. Moreover, consolidating all information in the main NPL article risks oversimplifying the league’s significance, making this article valuable for detailed reference. And telling directly that this season of the leauge has no evidence states indirect disrespect of the leauge cause it's the first season of it. And as mentioned Nepal Premier Leauge itself covers general info about the leauge but this article presents much info about the upcoming season 2024 so it isn't needless. Xaloria (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The league has an Instagram account officialnplt20 which posted a full fixture list 2 days ago so it is going ahead. Compared to other pages on wiki for specific seasons this actually has up to date squads! Therefore it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful24 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I was skeptical of the idea that this page will be re-created as soon as the season starts anyways, but seeing the sources linked above, as well as some of those in the article, I am now fairly certain that this meets the WP:GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 12:50, 21 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 12:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lubo Smid

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

Not meeting WP GNG nor ANYBIO; promotional page with no sufficient media coverage according to WP RS RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:48, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Son Jeong-ryun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 11:37, 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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Adebayo

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

This person is only notable for achieving second place in a reality TV show. Nothing else about here is notable. There are references from a variety of sources but again these only relate to her appearance in one series of of the TV show and nothing else. Per WP:NOTDIR we don't have to have articles on every participant in a reality show, surely only the winner is (borderline) notable but people rarely remember who came second. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:42, 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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florat

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

As of November 2024, there has been no new media coverage or updates since the previous deletion proposal, and the subject still fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Iaof2017 (talk) 10:39, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALBANA (artist)

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

Subject fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability, with no verifiable career achievements or significant news coverage to support its inclusion. Iaof2017 (talk) 10:22, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of planar particle motion

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

Original Research Graphitr (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based on original research, as was originally pointed out on the talk page in 2012 ( https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Talk:Mechanics_of_planar_particle_motion#c-Flau98bert-2012-09-09T15:53:00.000Z-Brews_ohare-2008-10-14T01:41:00.000Z), and does not appear to have significantly change in that regard since then. It appears to have originated from a edit war (also pointed out in the linked comment), rather than being started to elucidate a topic which deserves a full article in its own right. Graphitr (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Original research, maybe, but where exactly do you find this "Original Research"? I see a handful of sources and no [citation needed] ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning Delete I read the talk page message, but I do see a few problems- an NPOV violation is stated. I see that there still can be original research with the sources- however we will have to double check to make sure it hasn't been fixed. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the direct quotes, the computations and expositions appear to be original (and, although this does not appear relevant to wikpedia policy, I should say incorrect). I did read through them myself: they were not fixed. The section on "Fictitious forces in polar coordinates" and "two terminologies" is pertinent: the article claims that there are two separate definitions or uses of the term "fictitious force", in particular the centrifugal force - one related to coordinates and the other related to non-inertial frames. More specifically, it argues that centrifugal force terms arise in polar coordinates *in inertial frames*. The citations do not back up these claims. Even if this were edited or flagged for editing, this viewpoint propagates through the entire article, and the numerous uncited computations/expositions. Moreover, it is not clear that this topic requires its own article. Graphitr (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. There might be an encyclopedic topic here, but the page as it stands is a lengthy exercise in POV-pushing and advocacy of non-standard terminology, written in a way that makes it a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violation. In other words, it's an attempt to write a chapter of a highly idiosyncratic textbook, and thus unsuitable for our purposes. Rescuing it would involve jacking up the title and running a new article beneath. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Stewart

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

The subject is not notable: the article was created by the subject himself (COI violation) and the sources are either unreliable or questionable, with LInkedIn and Spotify being used; there is one source that is reliable in some cases, Apple Music, however here it is not, it is a podcast that probably features the subject talking. Some of the sources, like this one, were written by the subject himself. 750h+ 08:55, 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 Speedy delete‎. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaaz Ebrahim Ikbal

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


See Ijaaz Ebrahim. No changes this time around from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ijaaz Ebrahim. Unlike that assessment, International Business Times is unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources. DareshMohan (talk) 06:19, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lazzat with Asad

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

Unsourced since creation in 2010 by a now-blocked user. Brought to AfD in 2010 but went to no consensus. There may be Urdu sources I’ve not found, but otherwise no indication of notability, Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wonder why we didn't just go through PROD deletion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was previously PRODed. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG, seems nothing much about it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many episodes on YouTube. It's clearly a real cooking TV show in Pakistan. Not surprisingly there aren't any sources in English, although there are lots of cooking blogs and pinterest posts in English by fans of the chef and his recipes. This is definitely a topic which could be notable, and deserves someone who speaks Urdu (or perhaps Arabic sources as well?).4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has no sources since its creation in 2010. Searched but nothing was found to show that this possibly will pass notability. This fails all notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 10:45, 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 delete‎. Sandstein 08:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammad Quraishi

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

No indication of notability. Being on a school board is not a prominent political position, even if he was the youngest. Article had previously been speedy deleted, both under this title and Ammad Uddin Quraishi. ... discospinster talk 05:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to Draft - Article reaches both general notability guidelines as established by Wikipedia standards as well as subject specific guidelines for a politician. A school board position in New Jersey is a state level office , thus reaching notability under subnational politician rules. Since an individual or role not accorded presumed notability may still reach notability thresholds through the general notability guidelines, it is important of note that the individual was the youngest muslim elected to public office in the United States (relevant see: Bushra Amiwala). It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous".
Sources cited are reliable, secondary sources of significant press coverage, which has primarily appeared in print or on regional air (TV/radio), and has since been archived. BernieBruh (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, being the youngest identity to hold an office in the US is pretty significant. LahrenFan21 (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Simons (politician) and Jaylen Smith (politician) and others were 18yo when elected mayors of their municipalities, so not really a first here. Djflem (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, mentioning Simons and Smith does give credibility to the WP:NPOL element as well as the WP:SIGCOV element. Simons coverage is local media, and Smith's mayoral election in a municipality 1/22nd the size of Quraishi's still holds notability. Smith of course benefits from national coverage, esp in relation to joining Clinton and Harris at events of course. LahrenFan21 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @4meter4 While I do agree that school board office holders are typically considered WP:ROUTINE, as it was notable for Amiwala when published in 2019, it is notable that Quraishi holds a national title in that role. I understand your point on the sourcing of more media coverage, and am working accessing archived national news sources to attach to this article. BernieBruh (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a COI here? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National title? There's no such thing as a national title for a local school board member. If you mean the claim that he is youngest muslim to be elected in the United States, I don't think that claim is something that is provable. For one, we don't typically go around collecting data on the religions (or ages) of school board members or any other minor elected office holder nationally, and two proving that claim would require analyzing the religions of every school board member and minor elected office holder who has ever held office historically in every city, township, and bureau with elected offices nationally. Somebody could been elected as an auditor in a small town who was younger and muslim thirty years ago, and it probably would have passed without fanfare. In other words, its a highly speculative claim, and the sourcing itself doesn't appear to support the claim under our policy at Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the poor choice of words. Appreciate you pointing that out. But yes, referring to the claim of being the youngest muslim to be elected in the United States. It's true that data on religions or ages aren't gone around to be collected, but the latter is public information via filing data and reports. The former can generally be deduced if not reported. I agree with you that someone could have been elected to another position who was younger (than 18) and longer ago, which would then need to be reflected. I disagree that it's a highly speculative claim, but can concede that the sourcing can be stronger on noting that superlative. There is an archived story in a national publication that I'm working to source that had made note of it. Regardless, I still think it makes sense to Keep the article live (not just because I worked on it), but to add a tag to get more source material or citations. BernieBruh (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an individual's already-thin claim to notability is not supported by any reliable sources then it is inappropriate to publish it. Putting the article in draft will give the opportunity to find archived sources, and I originally did that, but you re-published it anyway. ... discospinster talk 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was following the guidance you left on my talk page about moving the page back when ready for publication, though now I see I should have opted for "submit for review" option instead, so my apologies on that front. My understanding that the notability claim was supported by a reliable source, being The Record (in circulation since 1895). But I'll still work on attaching additional sources. Thanks, BernieBruh (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Record article only states that he's running, not that he's the youngest Muslim to be on a school board. ... discospinster talk 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can deduce people's religions based on what? Their names? Where they live? People of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) live all over the world and have many kinds of names. See if you can guess the religion of the person based on their name in this list: Ammar al-Basri, Peter Finch, Jermaine Jackson, Vinnie Paz, John Walker Lindh, Abdulahad AbdulNour, Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Keith Ellison, Leda Rafanelli, Gabriele Torsello, Rita Habib, Robert Dickson Crane, Shotaro Noda, Ryoji Aikawa, Masayoshi Ōhira, Tani Yutaka. Also where has there ever been a collection of the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database? The answer: No where. To run for office in a town the official process varies from state to state. Depending on the state one lives in, one files to run for local office at sometimes the township level and in other places it might be administrated by the county or at the state level. While their might be a record of the names of past office holders at local level in a state document; typically the age of that person isn't recorded except on the filing document which is generally held in the archives of the township or the county. While there is the freedom of information act, figuring out even where to look to get the ages of past people in elected office would be very challenging; particularly for people elected prior to the internet era in a small town (of which there are more than 19,000 in the United States). That would require physically going down to the township building and digging through old election filing forms. Some of those might have been thrown out after a period of time, lost, or destroyed. Others locked away in a dusty file cabinet that no one has looked at in decades. The point is, in no way did someone actually compile all that data and definitively come to a conclusion on this claim. It's simple guesswork, which is meaningless.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, generally speaking/on average, yes we can deduce most people's religions based on their name or country of origin. (My family has a very stereotypically Jewish name, for example, and it doesn't make us any less Jewish.) There are many Wikipedia articles detailing names associated with religions or identities. Quraishi, some names in Arabic-language surnames, Jewish surnames to name a few. That doesn't negate your point about people of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) having many kinds of names, but cherry picking a few (including converts) to make the point is counterproductive. Regardless, a source cited in the article makes reference to the fact that Quraishi is Muslim. I'll be sure to cite it where appropriate. And sure there may not be a collection of all the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database, but that isn't how we do research or source and present materials. Otherwise, there's no place for sites like Wikipedia on the internet. Contributors find sources and information and add or update articles as those sources are sought or are discovered, since there isn't a universal database containing all of the information. If that's the standard by which we're to source information, then we need to scrap this entire site. I do agree with you that it's not easy to source info and figuring out where to look to get some information is very challenging, but not impossible. Plus, even if someone didn't compile all that data and definitively come to the conclusion, a reasonable inference can be drawn, and titles can change hands over the years as someone else comes along, or uncovers a source that reveals new information. Best BernieBruh (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how Wikipedia works. We have rules regarding WP:Verifiability. We also have rules regarding WP:No original research. Inference does not meet the standard of our verifiability rules, and making inferences as you suggest is a form of WP:OR which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy . Another one of those rules is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This is an extraordinary claim, and it therefore requires extraordinary sourcing which means a minimum of three high quality references that are clearly independent of the subject (which excludes local media). So far there are zero sources that I would consider meet the standard we need to verify this extraordinary claim. In short we can't make this claim on wikipedia. And FYI, research of the kind I described above is what an academic or a journalist from a reputable publication would do before making the claim your making. That would be the standard of sourcing needed to publish that fact in a reputable journal or newspaper. Reliable publishers don't present guesswork as facts, and if they are guessing they say so up front by saying is "possibly" or "maybe". If I were to make that claim about Quraishi definitively being the youngest musilim American ever elected before an IRB board at my university while trying to get a journal article published I would get scoffed at with "how can you prove that?" questions. It wouldn't fly. And it doesn't fly here. Not without stronger evidence. 4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No COI on the Quraishi article, but a potential COI on the Amiwala one, on which I've refrained from edits and additions. BernieBruh (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serving on a school board does not pass WP:NPOL, and the entirely expected existence of purely local coverage of the school board's activities is not sufficient to claim that a school board trustee has passed WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy NPOL. We're writing history here, not news — our job isn't to maintain an article about every individual person that somebody in Bergen County, New Jersey might have read about in their local newspaper yesterday, it's to maintain articles about people who will have national and/or international significance that will endure into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s. School board trustees, however, almost never have anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serving on a school board does not provide an automatic pass via WP:NPOL. The sources we want to see is coverage of the subject's accomplishments and legacy in office. This is the same standard we hold to mayors and city councilmembers. We can recognize notable firsts, but those firsts must be recognized by sources with a national scope (and must not be sourced entirely to a claim that a subject makes about being a first). Nothing suggests the sourcing exists in this case. --Enos733 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/ (still) Keep. In part agree with @Enos733 that serving on a school board is not an automatic pass via WP:NPOL, and with @Bearcat that the job here isn't to maintain an article about every individual person... but rather those that have national and/or international significance. The nod to national significance that does endure the times is the fact that Quraishi is the youngest of a particular community group (in this case Muslim, perhaps also Pakistani-American) to serve/get elected to office in the United States, even if it is a school board position. I've updated source material on the article and will include the citations here as well that do make a note of it with a national scope. I did find a source that appears to be produced by the subject pointing to a dead New York Times link; however, I need the guidance of the Wikipedia veterans and editors on what to do about these dead links, and archived links or documents.
References: New York Times (dead, searching for alternate), Muslim Public Affairs Council (dead, archived), The Daily Stack (subject owned, points to these sources) BernieBruh (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Age is not a permanent notability claim in and of itself. Being the youngest person to hold an NPOL-passing office would be a secondary fact of interest, but not a person's key notability claim — the NPOL-passing office would already clinch notability regardless of age, and age would just be a mere footnote to that rather than a notability maker in its own right. But being the youngest person to hold an NPOL-failing office is not special enough to make a person a topic of more enduring significance than any of his older colleagues, because it doesn't render him more famous than other school board members. And as for those sources, the Daily Stack and the Muslim Public Affairs Council are primary sources that wouldn't count as support for notability at all, while Fort Lee being just a stone's throw across the river from New York City renders the New York Times into the run of the mill coverage of local school boards that's merely expected to exist rather than nationalizing coverage, because Fort Lee is inside the NYT's local coverage area. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 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. WP:SNOW. asilvering (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump effect

[edit]
All prior XfDs for this page:


Trump effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Collection of quotes showing no evidence that "Trump effect" exists as a well-defined, studied concept. There's also a big issue of WP:RECENTISM about defining it as the specific effect of Trump's 2024 reelection, given that previous iterations of the same idea were repeatedly deleted in 2016, in 2017 and in 2023.

Also, not a policy but I'm tempted to link to this essay: Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other claims. Hoax? Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created (or recreated, I suppose) this article, I will go with whatever the consensus is. Perhaps the content could be merged into some other article? The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that the article in Reuters and a few others I saw are insufficient. Even the exact subject here is not clear. One would think this is a page about the influence of Trump on US society and politics (and it is enormous!), but this is not how the subject was framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For all the reasons above. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy or snow delete. The article doesn't even say what the alleged subject is. "certain incidents" is not a defined subject at all. Most of the article is an indiscriminate list of News articles, only two of which even have "Trump effect" in their headlines, and none of which have any obvious relation to each other other than proximity to Trump and November 2024. This is worse than some of the previous unsuccessful attempts at an article under this name which did at least attempt to find a topic to write about. I think it might be speedily deleted under WP:A1 if we treat the list content as irrelevant padding. Failing that it's a snow delete. Maybe there will be something called the "Trump effect" one day. I could see it being used to describe a coarsening of political discourse for example, but it is not for us to coin such neologisms. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, and WP:SALT, as per most of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete, seems like an attack page if anything. Also appears to be a :dictionary definition at best, certainly not a useful article to have. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:09, 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. Sandstein 08:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McLean (broadcaster)

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

I could not find coverage to meet WP:BIO. Only 1 other article links to this. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 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 redirect‎ to Vehicle registration plates of China. Consensus to redirect afte reopening post DRV. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates

[edit]
People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Odd fork of Vehicle registration plates of China. Another editor redirected it there, but was reverted with the (dubious, in my opinion) reason that "zh wiki has two separate articles". Most of the content here duplicates Vehicle registration plates of China and I can find no compelling reason to keep a fork. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some contents are duplicated with Vehicle registration plates of China. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to retain the functionality of the language switcher from zh.wp. The xtools reports for the zh articles are pretty interesting: the vehicle registration plates article is slightly older, but the civilian vehicle registration plates article has fifteen times as many inlinks and sees three times as much traffic. Both have similar numbers of edits and distinct editors. This isn't an argument for or against any course of action here, but the fork is somewhat mystifying. Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 6 following a previous close of "redirect".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Vehicle registration plates of China. Technically a merge is okay, but the overlap here is massive, making a merge unnecessary. For instance, most of the "civilian" article consists of the list of prefixes by province, which is already included in its entirety in the main article. I consider the "civilian" article a content fork and it should not be kept. Toadspike [Talk] 08:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Massive overlap. This is a plausible topic, but it is untenable with this cross-article organizational issue. Redirecting does not remove significant content. The article can be restored when editors decide to treat this is a proper spinoff, when they figure out what to put where and how to summarize what was left at the parent article. The current state of things is not helpful to readers.—Alalch E. 15:24, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cockeram

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

Does not pass GNG. All mentions appear to be passing mentions and no SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:50, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More Tyme

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

Non notable musician. Spam from blocked sock farm who built a walled garden Lot Fire Records. Refbombed with lots of PR placements which lack independence. Really not a good idea to try pass off the same press release as two different articles [27], [28]. "In general, "Balage" is an awe-inspiring addition to More Tyme's expanding discography. It truly showcases their exceptional musical talent and artistic vision, making it an appealing choice for both long-time fans and new listeners seeking fresh and innovative sounds. The song serves as a testament to More Tyme's unwavering dedication to their craft, setting a high standard for their future releases." Obvious PR. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:28, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Ryine

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

Non notable musician. Spam from blocked sock farm who built a walled garden Lot Fire Records. Refbombed with lots of PR placements which lack independence. "As Off Ryine continues to pave the way for the next generation of Ugandan musicians, his legacy as a singer-songwriter remains firmly rooted in the history and spirit of Uganda. Through his music, he has brought the rich traditions of his country to the world stage, earning accolades and admiration for his unwavering commitment to preserving and celebrating Ugandan culture." Obvious PR. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Siizer

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

Non notable musician. Spam from blocked sock farm who built a walled garden for Lot Fire Records. Refbombed with lots of PR placements which lack independence. Really not a good idea to try pass off the same press release as two different articles [29], [30]. "In the ever-evolving world of music, where talent is plentiful and creativity knows no bounds, there are individuals who rise above the rest, setting new standards and blazing trails in the industry. One such luminary is the accomplished musician and music executive, Bash Luks, ...". Obvious PR. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 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 redirect‎ to Dalek. Any editors who wish to merge over some of the content can copy it out of the page history. asilvering (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skaro

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

A large, entirely summary-style article covering the home planet of the Daleks, Skaro. All sources used in the article are either primary or information used for basic verification, and a BEFORE for Skaro turned up a lot of fantastic sources on the Daleks, but Skaro was only mentioned in passing in many of these. Skaro received reference in a lot of summaries of the Daleks and their origins, but did not receive any analysis separately from the Dalek species. I searched through News (Which only turned up plot summary and trivial mentions of the planet), Books (Which turned up several fantastic sources for the Dalek species, but only trivial mentions of the planet), and Scholar (Which turned up similar results to Books.) This subject is not individually notable of the Daleks, and is only mentioned in passing in every source that mentions it, lacking any form of SIGCOV that would mean it would pass the GNG. A logical AtD is to the Daleks, as it is their home planet and mentioned multiple times throughout the article in the species' backstory. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:06, 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 delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handy, Benton County, Indiana

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

This was and is a rail point. Formerly it was a crossing of two lines, and the building displayed in the article was the tower which controlled the interlocking. Now the track going north has been abandoned and there is only a junction with the southern line; all of this trackage now belongs to the Kankakee, Beaverville and Southern Railroad. There is a farm immediately adjacent, but it is a farm, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 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. Consensus lean towards a keep per the sources provided. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Ismail

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

No notable career achievements that can be verified. News coverage is nonexistent. He is the brother of Rocket Ismail, however per WP:BLPRELATED, that is irrelevant. 162 etc. (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he received a "bloody beating" according to that 1997 article. According to boxrec.com he lost both of his pro boxing fights. That coverage was essentially a report in a Syracuse paper on a bottom of the card fight in Syracuse. Otherwise, all of the other sources are from two Wilkes-Barre papers where he lived. None of which appear to be notable coverage, plus multiple references from the same source count as 1 source (at most). Competing in amateur MMA fights has never shown WP notability. Still not seeing WP:GNG, or any SNG, being met. Papaursa (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you think that his accomplishments are insignificant is irrelevant; whether he meets the MMA SNG is also irrelevant – the only factor that goes into determining notability at this point is whether the coverage is significant. That's it. GNG makes no mention of "exceptions" on if the coverage is for MMA fights – the only thing that matters is if there's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Feature stories like this are clearly SIGCOV and being local is irrelevant (not to mention there was other articles I didn't list, including a few stories from Texas). He meets GNG – he's notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
There are millions of articles on people in small town papers who aspire to be professional singers, athletes, actors, etc. Even though they never succeed, you're claiming that coverage is sufficient to show WP notability? Or are you influenced because he has notable brothers (which should have no impact on his notability)? I never claimed MMA notability was required, but some kind of achievement is, or at least coverage that is more significant than millions of others in the world have received. Papaursa (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of articles on people in small town papers ... you're claiming that coverage is sufficient to show WP notability? According to WP:GNG, significant coverage is sufficient. The notability guidelines mention nothing of excluding coverage for accomplishments if one (arbitrarily) deems them as insignificant. Additionally, I don't think that there's "millions" of people who "never succeed in their aspirations" who receive feature stories in moderately large newspapers in several states across the U.S. (Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, etc.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG. The first few of BeanieFan11's sources look like they're from high school but the others look okay. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources provided by Beanie. There’s sufficiently detailed press coverage across time to meet our general notability guidelines. SNGs like the one on MMA are only one pathway to notability, and those guidelines are not meant to replace and subvert GNG. Also, any article meeting GNG in athletics will meet WP:SPORTSBASIC which this article does.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:34, 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 Withdrawn by nom, myself‎. (non-admin closure) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 08:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Wolverton Road Bridge

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

Prod-ed and de-prod-ed this a day or two ago, because I wasn't 100% sure how it might be seen to pass GNG (note that bridges, under WP:NBUILD, do not have specific notability requirements, the two lines circle back to WP:GNG. I'm putting it to AfD now as I do not believe this bridge satisfies GNG, because save for being a listed structure, I cannot see how it is actually notable in its own right. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:29, 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.