Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 16	November 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Ponytail canasta

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this card game in reliable sources. I do not think a redirect would be appropriate because there's no mention of Ponytail Canasta in the main Canasta article. Also per WP:NOTHOWTO. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Uruguay, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly. I could find no WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canasta. A quick survey of google, gnews, and gbooks shows there are plenty of references to this to verify it exists, even though I see nothing to suggest it is notable. A brief mention at the main Canasta article, with this redirected there, would be sufficient invitation for anyone who likes it enough to expand, possibly spin it out later if notability can be established. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but I haven't been able to find sourcing that's reliable and adequate to even write a full sentence other than to say "something by this name exists" in the main Canasta article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's adequate, since Canasta is unquestionably notable. Jclemens (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can any of these sourcess rescue the article: [1] [2] [3] [4]. If yes, I may help. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those seem reliable to me, unfortunately. The first two a labeled as WP:BLOGS, the third is an online gaming platform, and the fourth is from an extremely web 1.0 with no indication of who wrote it, which I would imagine is self published. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Meager

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

I could not find indepth coverage in google news or books to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, not a full professor and citations count is relatively low. Also an orphan article, which is unusual for an acadenic. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Economics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof. Maybe WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF. No WP:SIGCOV of the subject. They may become notable in the future, but not today.4meter4 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-digit h-index and minor academic awards not good enough yet to show a pass of WP:PROF, no other signs of notability in evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a PhD in 2017, I think this is just a case of too-early career. There's one or two highly cited papers, then a big drop off. No prejudice to recreating in a few years. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON, not notable (at least yet), no visible impact of their contributions yet, no major achievement, and lack significant coverage. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they lack significant coverage and it’s too soon in their career. Bearian (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World's Worst Boardgame

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

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

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

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

Keep but only because WP:ILIKEIT. I know this is an WP:IAR vote, but this honestly was such an entertaining little article. I'm still chuckling.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone want to transwiki this to https://board-games.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Board_Games_Wiki ? -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 17 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!} 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird International

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep per WP:HEY. The sourcing has significantly improved, and the nominator and subsequent delete voters have not been able to provide a source analysis of the new sources. I say err on the side of caution and keep the article for now. If a Hungarian speaking editor comes in and offers a different opinion ping me.4meter4 (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So have you provided a source analysis to support your keep vote? LibStar (talk) 10:16, 19 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!} 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we can keep it, it has keepable content, but is surrounded by shell of unnecessary details, wp:promo and primary sources which needs attention. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed the shell as I saw it. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz)

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

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

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

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

Comment. It would help if a Polish speaker were to go through the sources in detail and explain what they are. While I see some that look routine, others look plausible, and I'm seeing no pressing need to delete this article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if @Piotrus might have a moment to provide some insight, or if they know someone else who does. They're the main Polish speaker I know of, but happy for anyone's input. Star Mississippi 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi I am suprised this has no pl wiki article. It's creator, @Wikibenchris, is fluent in English, and I expect they should provide the answers we need. I am concerned about OR in this article (ex. the claim of earliest mention is sourced to a 1876 map...). GNG is an issue, the only SIGCOV I was able to locate is this article on a local Polish portal [5]. The article would be fine except OR and GNG issues... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time @Piotrus. @Wikibenchris unfortunately hasn't edited since before the AfD but I'd see no issue with providing the text should this close as delete and they return to editing and request it to improve. (Not saying it should be deleted, I cannot read any of the sourcing to fairly assess it) Star Mississippi 14:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like a lot of work has gone into this, and if any (out of policy) OR could be pruned out, it could be a valuable article. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Side-note: machine translation is very good these days and one click away in most browsers... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a possible merge or redirect target for this under WP:ATD? Seems a shame to lose some of this content.4meter4 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there really nowhere we can transwiki something like this? Seems to me to obviously not be a Wikipedia article as such, but isn't there somewhere it can go? -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 17 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!} 23:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm just going to say keep because nobody wants to delete this who is commenting here. It may be an WP:IAR vote, but having it is better than losing it.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless someone wants to write an individual article for each of the listed buildings along it, which are all notable in their own right per WP:GEOFEAT, we should desist from deleting information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Runkle

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would a Move to Joyful Ventures be a possibility worth considering? I see some references, some are WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. [6] Andre🚐 22:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to The Good Food Institute per WP:ATD. As the co-founder of that non-profit that is probably the best outcome rather than deletion. Otherwise fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd redirect to The Good Food Institute but the subject isn't mentioned at that target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam Rabel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Our guidelines for local politicians are pretty strict. A mayor of a relatively small town like Golapganj Municipality is not notable. The news coverage would need to be national or global in scope and not just local to justify an article under GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote here in this discussion so I don't think a Soft Deletion is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Leahy

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

A search for sources in google news and google books yields very little except namesakes. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. She also fails WP:PROF as an academic as google scholar yields little. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How thoroughly did you look in google books? The first book in my search Envoys Extraordinary: Women of the Canadian Foreign Service has an entire chapter (chapter 18) dedicated to her. That's clearly not a namesake, and definitely WP:SIGCOV. I'm going to look for more...4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV

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

Proposed deletion of list/article. No sources for most of this article (in particular dates). No independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NLIST, WP:TV. Msw1002 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Again with this? Must be the season. Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is worse off than a discussion that was ~~is currently~~ going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons. This list lacks anything to back it up. How can you reference back to those dates, if the programs did air as stated? We need to be on the same sheet on all lists per WP:NLIST. Rivertown (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a standard WP:SPLITLIST. WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." -Mushy Yank. 10:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists of television shows should consist of original programming, none of which can be easily seen on this channel and article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure how this list can be considered valid per WP:NLIST. The titles and years listed on these programs have nothing to reference back to. Unless you look at the edit history?? However, edit history is not a reliable source. Anybody can add a program or year to this particular list, that doesn't mean it is valid information. Now or back then. Also, lacks other sources.Mca2001 (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Lysyshyn

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2013. A search for sources found only 1 google news hit, and 1 line mentions in google books. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Russia, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it’s a poorly designed resume, not an article. Bearian (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki

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

Contested draftification. Not very well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search returns little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Poland. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably draftify, since it's only two months away from the first event. Should be enough time to wait for more stuff about it until then. After or just before the first event it can probably be moved back to mainspace. Procyon117 (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Procyon117 For the record, I'm totally for this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is my vote also, there will be more content and references soonish. Ticelon (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Clearwater Bay Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete About as an average of a condo tower as you can get. This gets deleted 9/10 times in any other town as we've done many other times before, and some of the keeps are also forgetting outright that some of the residents don't want a Wikipedia article about their building no matter how many times the local real estate media hype it up. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the coverage found by Cunard looks a lot, it's rather WP:ROUTINE, e.g. "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch". For this reason, I don't think this is notable. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm honestly waffling between weak keep and weak delete here, as the building has been discussed in at least one English-language Hong Kong architectural book (Xue 2016), in part because it's built on top of a transit station and for being a "pencil tower." I don't really mind if this is deleted, as the articles that have been found appear to be transactional real estate articles, and I'm not sure notability is guaranteed here just because it's been in one architectural book. I think my position is that we haven't entirely demonstrated notability, but we might be a source away. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book added by Underwaterbuffalo is the one I found, but the scholarly article is just two listing in two tables. It is helpful, but it doesn't push this into a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building has been described and used as an example in at least one book and one scholarly article. I have added the references in the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the news coverage found by Cunard, a journal article, and now a book I think we have safely arrived at WP:SIGCOV. Diversity of sources is a good indication of notability, and for me this is what has pushed it passed the line into the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My final vote is keep. WP:SIGCOV was proven and supported. No need for deletion. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may only !vote once. Please strike one of yours or turn it into a comment. Star Mississippi 15:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting for evaluation of the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources that is not just routine coverage to establish notability. Marcocanol (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: Thank you for your review. I’d like to address the concerns raised about notability and sourcing and provide additional context to support the article’s inclusion.
I understand that some sources may be viewed as routine or promotional. However, publications like *Cannabis Business Times* and *The Villager* provide relevant and independent coverage. Since legal cannabis is a new and heavily regulated field, mainstream media coverage is understandably limited, but these industry-specific sources highlight the subject’s importance within its niche.
The article also highlights milestones that go beyond routine business activities, such as being one of the first dispensaries to open after legalization, positioning the company as an early contributor to New York’s cannabis market. Its rebranding reflects growth and commitment to expansion, while its partnership with The Doe Fund, including hiring program graduates, addresses equity issues tied to past drug policies. These achievements illustrate the company’s broader impact on the industry and community.
If the consensus is that the article needs further work, I’d request it be moved to Draft Space for improvement as additional independent coverage becomes available. I appreciate your time and welcome any feedback on strengthening the article. Stephvrona (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without giving an opinion on anything else, I think the source assessment table is wrong on the first source. The Village Sun is a daily newspaper in NYC and the article has a by-lined author by a on-staff independent journalist. That source is both clearly reliable, and independent, even if the journalist interviewed some of the people working at The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store. Journalists do fact checking and the paper has an editorial staff. That should clearly be in the WP:SIGCOV column as an accepted source under WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darius J. Pearce

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, Business, and Jersey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that this is not the first time deletion of this article has been debated, I would ask you to explain what has changed since the last debate took place which would mean that the decision to retain the article, should now be re-considered?

He definitely falls within the general notability guideline in terms of Jersey. Darius J. Pearce is one of the most influential political figures in the island. As you may be able to tell he evokes strong feelings both for and against. However, even from within prison walls (he is not due for release until December 2025 at the earliest) he has still managed to hit the headlines every year since incarcerated (most of which have not been included within the article). Let's face it two people have been arguing for weeks over what should go in the article or not; that in itself dictates that he has some level of notability.

Whilst it is not unreasonable to argue that no Jersey politician meets the criteria required for WP:BASIC. That would seem to be very unfair to small jurisdictions; likewise no politician of the Pitcairn Islands or of the Faroe islands should be represented as they are not particularly newsworthy outside their jurisdiction. Admittedly a number of the stories which the original article refers to have since disappeared from the web, however, I have reviewed the article and there are a substantial number of stories from other Jersey news sources which have not been referred to.

There is a danger in people from large jurisdictions not allowing small jurisdictions to be properly represented, I would say if you delete this article then at least 90% of Jersey articles should also be deleted. RichardColgate (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — RichardColgate (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of DariusJersey (talk · contribs). [reply]
RichardColgate, if he is one of the most influential political figures in the island, it should be no trouble finding sources stating as such. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern was/is to prevent defamation from taking place... deletion achieves that - so I am ambivalent on the deletion generally, but wished to raise the issue of ensuring that small jurisdictions. Trust me - no one from Jersey is of any particular importance outside Jersey other than Henry Cavill of course. So I am sure Curb Safe Charmer and I will agree that it is better if local people decide who is locally notable.

The article was very old and a lot of the links upon which it was based no longer function, that does not mean that they never did. Wikipedia does not require that the facts are verifiable ONLY from internet links.

You have decided you want to edit this article so you could do the research I suggest that you look up the human rights case in the Court of Appeal of Jersey, which he won as a litigant in person. The first person ever. Extremely notable within our community. Just go through all the judgements that you removed from the article and you will see why he is notable... he is not a lawyer, he represents himself and he wins. A non-lawyer mentioned in the Letter to the Editor in the Jersey Law Review by Stephanie Nicolle QC (not being from Jersey you will not understand the importance of Stephanie Nicolle but she is THE authority on law in Jersey, she never gets anything wrong).

I am not here to prove anything to you, BUT... should you wish to delete the article then so be it, there is nothing stopping me from re-posting once I have had the time and inclination to do the research and write the article. RichardColgate (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. Also delete per WP:NOTPROMO as the article is clearly full of puffery and lack encyclopedic WP:TONE. As far as I can tell no serious discussion of notability has taken place anywhere. This is the first AFD, and Talk:Darius J. Pearce has a very nominal wave at a notability discussion without actually engaging with WP:N policy in a meaningful way. The article is currently mainly cited to WP:PRIMARY sources, and those that are not independent or only mention the subject in passing. None of the sources meet the requirements at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - meets WP:GNG - see Google News, but needs to be TNTed due to COI, neutrality and undue weight. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Curb Safe Charmer, WP:BASIC requires significant coverage from sources that are intellectually independent of each other. The Google News link only shows coverage in one local newspaper. Are there any other sources which provide significant coverage? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A quick search found [7], [8], [9], [10]. Note Bailiwick Express was independent of the Jersey Evening Post at the time, but the companies have since merged. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So it appears that if he is notable, it is because of his criminal activities, in which case WP:CRIMINAL comes into play. I do not believe either of the criteria apply. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fails WP:CRIMINAL. And WP:SIGCOV is still not met.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's convinced me. Struck my keep !vote and changed to delete. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I chopped out all the material that not verifiable per WP:BURDEN/ WP:Verifiability; removed criminal content cited only to primary sources which is a no-no under WP:BLPCRIMINAL and WP:Attack page; and removed all original synthesis and analysis on primary sources per WP:No original research. There's hardly anything left now in the article, because there is no secondary coverage of this man except for his criminal activities above. But adding that in now would be against multiple policies; including WP:CRIMINAL, WP:BLPCRIMINAL, and WP:Attack page. There's no way we can have an article on this man.4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* I have been persuaded to change from being ambivfalent to being in favour of deleting this article as it stands. I have neither the time nor the inclination to re-write the article now. I will simply re-add if and when I get the urge to write the article to the appropriate standard. Thanks to all for their assistance in bringing the defamation to an end of one of the most renowned and notable anti-establishment Jersey politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardColgate (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the original author of the article, although it has changed significantly since I wrote the stub back in 2006. I concur that nearly all the articles which have been the source of much of the development of this page have now gone dead for one reason or another but the article is nearly 20 years old.

No doubt he falls within the general notability guideline. I have found 62 separate news stories on Bailiwick Express related to Darius Pearce since 2014 (when that paper started). Here is one story from JEP which makes him recently very notable locally - ^[1], there are multiple articles in the Jersey Evening Post archive. There are many pages worth of his Court cases on the Jersey Law website (see the 10:41, 13 November 2024 version of the page). How much coverage is significant coverage? He is most notable to me personally as the only other Darius who lives in Jersey, however that is beside the point. The trouble is that most articles about him are 'tabloid' articles. If you read this article you would know that this goes back to the time he embarrassed the JEP by pointing out they were aggrandising the Chief Minister by cropping photos in a misleading way. He has been newsworthy even whilst languishing in a prison cell (under Jersey's laws he can be released no earlier than after five years, so that will be December 2025). I would concur with Richard Colgate's comments about small jurisdictions, it is important that we are represented equally with larger jurisdictions. If you were to ask anyone in Jersey who are the 100 most notable political figures then Darius would definitely make it in and for the 50 most notable, when it came to the top 20 I think that would be pushing it. How notable is notable within a small jurisdiction? You seem to want to exclude him simply for not being ruthless enough a self-promoter.^[2]

KEEPI would look at it from the perspective of whether or not Jersey as a whole would be better represented with this page included or without, on that basis it is a

That said how we would reach a stage where the article was acceptable is another question. Much of the background information you have removed is available on Darius' blog and/or 'the Friends of Darius Pearce' (the group raising funds for his ongoing appeals) blog, sources do not need to be neutral per wiki requirements, I suspect that is the source of Richard Colgate's version of the article. see ^[3] ^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusJersey (talk • contribs) — DariusJersey (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.

References

^ "'No doubt' money-launderer handcuffed at father's funeral had rights breached". Jersey Evening Post. Jersey Evening Post. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "How to donate". Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "About Darius". Through Deserts Blog. Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "Darius Pearce Jersey electoral history". Flow.je. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

Note. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#DariusJersey and RichardColgate.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Both DariusJersey and RichardColgate have been blocked for abusive editing after a usercheck confirmed they are WP:SOCKS.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He doesn't meet the criteria for notability as a crime perpetrator. The only significant coverage of him is routine local coverage that focuses on his legal issues and refers to him as a jeweller. There's nothing to indicate he's notable as a politician either. Ynsfial (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we routinely delete the articles of failed parliamentary candidates. We also don’t owe an article to anyone or any place. Bearian (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Pew (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found a poem and a song called Blind Pew, and added them to the dab page. I'm leaning keep, because I think it'll be hard to get three very distinct topics into a reasonable hatnote. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Finished expanding so now it's a proper disambiguation page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has multiple possible search targets. This is perfectly fine as a disambiguation page.4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 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.

Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire

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

This "radio station regional sub-network" does not produce or originate any of its own programming. All programming is supplied by the national Greatest Hits Radio network. The article itself states that "it is not possible [...] to listen to a station branded Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire". There are existing articles, linked here, for the former radio stations which were merged into this network and another article for Greatest Hits Radio itself - this article seems surplus to requirements, particularly as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for "Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire" as a network. WP:ISNOT a directory of radio frequencies. Flip Format (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greatest Hits Radio There is no effective 'GHR Yorkshire' outside local insertions; no original programming outside local news and weather. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm unsure as to why this article would even be considered for deletion. I take the point about the name not being used on air but this name is what the station was. Plus, if allowed, this could see many other stations being deleted simply because they are also no longer broadcasting. Rillington (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The former stations have their own articles already; this just summarizes all of them being rolled up into one network without any local deviation outside travel and weather segments, which is already covered in the main GHR article. None of the articles are threatened with deletion. Nate • (chatter) 17:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For now they have but someone may try to get some of these deleted in the future on the grounds that this one was deleted. And whilst what you say is true re local deviation, GHR Yorkshire did have its own weekday show until last month. Rillington (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haruki Umemura

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted before. No trace of notability, played 1 cup game and not in any of the J Leagues, creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Umemura was deemed non-notable back in the first AfD ten years ago. He must meet GNG only in order for this article to be kept, as NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Even while searching for his name in Japanese, I didn't find any significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So, Umemura didn’t play a lot of soccer due to some serious injuries, but there is an absolute ton of extensive independent coverage both of the injuries cutting his career short, but also of his after football career as the assistant abbot of a Buddhist temple belonging to his wife’s family. I’ve gone ahead and edited the article with all the extra information, sources and line citations. It’s all in Japanese (naturally), but you should be able to use google translate to check it if you are so inclined. I only ended up using like 6-7 of the articles, but there are at least another dozen or so readily apparent via a basic google search of his name (in kanji), and I can only guess many more if I used more precise search terms. With all these in-depth and independent sources, there is no way that this article does not meet general notability, and since, as @Clariniie points out, there is no seperate NFOOTBALL, this is as clear a keep as I’ve come across in a while. Ping to @GiantSnowman as requested. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To add, I can’t find evidence of a prior AfD (I’m guessing just because I don’t know where to look, having only been here 3 months still), but if it was 10 years ago that would have been just after that first injury, so it makes sense it failed because at that stage he’d still played no professional games yet, and had not transformed himself into a monk, so coverage would have been minimum simple due to “too soon”. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haruki Umemura, it's literally linked in the top corner. Please summarise the sources for us. Giant Snowman 18:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice, can’t believe I didn’t look there.

They’re all in the article now, I added them all as sources / line citations… just click and translate via google translate. Some shorter articles, but some long articles too, a couple in the 3-5 page range. Here’s the kanji for his name though 梅村晴貴 - cut and past that into google and you’ll get the full basic search for his name.

It’s late here and I need to sleep, but if you still really need me to go through them for you rather than looking, I’ll have time later tomorrow.

Have a great day over there. Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so just the basics since I’m a bit busy this afternoon, but here’s that summary. Source order is as listed on the article.

Sources 2 and 4 - different pages from a 3 page article in a sports magazine on Umemura’s youth career, move to the professionals, and the injury that derailed his career.

Source 3 - single page article in the Shizuoka Shinbun Newspaper talking about Umemura’s participation in the SBS Cup International Youth Soccer tournament during his youth career.

Source 5 - short announcement, in an online soccer site, published by Kodansha, Japan’s largest publisher, announcing his professional signing.

Source 6 - short announcement, in same online site as source 5, announcing his injury and upcoming surgery.

Source 8 - 4 page article in a sports magazine talking about Umemura’s move from professional player, to team staff, to priest, due to the request from his wife’s family to take over their temple, and about his new role in that temple.

Source 9 - 1 page article in same online site as 5 and 6, talking about transition from player, to team staff, and then his two and a half years of training to gain his priest’s license. Also an announcement that he will be involved in a 15th anniversary match for the Toyama team, that I haven’t tracked down yet, as this article talks about it in the future tense.

Hope that helps. Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Costa (footballer, born 1992)

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

No significant coverage found during a WP:BEFORE. He played between 2–8 games for a number of clubs, in Brazilian's fourth, Mexico's second and Malaysia's league among others. The indication of notability is therefore very thin to start with. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The claim he played for Italian club Juventus is not verified, Soccerway suggests a Brazilian club of the same name. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be confused, there is a team in São Paulo called CA Juventus. He played for that club, not for Juventus FC. Svartner (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He played most of his career in teams from Rio de Janeiro state levels, but appears on a lot of local news portals due to spells in Americano and Belford Roxo: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Svartner (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, those sources are just transfer announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources also provide satisfactory coverage of the player's career. What is most questionable in this case is the athlete's career tier level, but WP:SIGCOV exists. Svartner (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about a semi-pro footballer whose claim to fame is scoring a goal in the first leg of the 2015 Taça Corcovado (as his club, Americano, would go on to win the second half of the third-tier Rio de Janeiro state competition). The articles above include a recap of that match that includes an interview with Ramón, and several articles about him re-signing with Americano years later (which reference that same goal). He's had a journeymen career at semi-pro level, and I can't find any SIRS coverage that would indicate our notability guideline is met. Jogurney (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I made some improvements to the article, including new sources. I understand he had a modest career and the discussion is valid, but I'm based on this precedent. Svartner (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China-Myanmar community with a shared future

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

Does not appear to have WP:SUSTAINED notability warranting an artcle. Amigao (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, China, and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to China–Myanmar relations as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PreliZ

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

No evidence of WP:GNG from the sources given: the only independent source (not co-written by PreliZ authors) is this arXiv preprint, which doesn't even mention PreliZ explicitly but only cites the original paper once for a wider claim. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't show anything else, and, as the package is still very new, it isn't surprising that significant coverage hasn't accumulated yet. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While it might become notable, there's nothing worth salvaging from the article so far that can't be covered on Wikidata. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kuria

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kenya. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator gave us a source analysis and discussed why each specific source does not meet the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. It's asking a lot of your audience to go through all that material without knowing your thinking up front.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no requirement for a nominator to offer a source-by-source analysis (I only do so proactively when sources are debatable). In this case there’s no SIGCOV of the subject, as I noted in my nomination. Participants are welcome to evaluate them to see if they agree, as I do when I participate in AfDs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not nom, but I've had a look anyway. Source 1 is WordPress, considered unreliable. Source 2 probably okay, but doesn't mention anything about his father. Had to go to the archive for source 3, since it redirects back to the main page for some reason, but it doesn't mention when he became CEO. Same reason to find source 4, doesn't support sentence. Neither do sources 5 or 6, which don't mention him at all. Source 7 probably okay. Source 8 only says that it is owned by him and his family, so no idea why individual family members are listed. Source 9 is basically a list of richest people from Embu, not sure how reliable that is, so won't conclude on that. Source 10 is probably okay (went to archive). Source 11 doesn't mention him at all. Procyon117 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the source analysis by Procyon117 who identified three good sources. That meets WP:THREE and therefore WP:SIGCOV. Any content issue can be solved through normal editing. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, @Procyon117's analysis is unconvincing.
- Source 2: An article about Kuria's company with two mentions of him being quoted in the context of his job, not WP:SIGCOV:
  - Neo Kenya Mpya CEO Douglas Kuria is optimistic that they will adopt electric buses, but he is not going “all money in” at the moment.
  - “We are starting with this vehicle for courier services. We want to have electric buses too, so this is for us to have the knowledge and gain experience,” Mr Kuria said. “We feel towards 2024 we need to have partnerships like this towards what we want to achieve.” He, however, would not say when the company will go fully electric. “Even the first world countries have not really fully replaced theirs (for electric), that is why we have a research and improvement arm, ‘Transport for Tomorrow’ purposed to drive our logistics to a different level.” Kuria said the idea of converting their buses to electric is also not viable. “When it comes to technology we do not want to have a barrier on what it (technology) can do, but we believe the best way around it is to have a new bus that is fully electric rather than a conversion,” he said.
- Source 7, labeled "probably okay" by Procyon117, ~~doesn't even mention Kuria at all.~~ has a single quotation from Kuria (under an alternative name): "Neo Kenya Mpya CEO Douglas Njiru praised the innovation as the solution to the congestion at matatu termini. “With this system, we are able to get real-time data of the number of buses at the stage and those on the road, while passengers can see from the app those available for booking,” he explained."
- Source 10 mentions Kuria in three photo captions and quotes him once: “We are optimistic that META Electric T3 Vans will play a part in reducing the huge proportion of greenhouse gasses that comes from passenger transport. We must all work together with Government to improve planning of city roads, terminus and parking spaces so that EVs can seamlessly substitute diesel-powered vehicles. Our goal is that at least ten percent of our fleet is powered sustainably by 2025. Said Douglas Kuria, CEO of Neo Kenya Mpya Limited.
Let me know how you think these constitute WP:SIGCOV, particularly the one that doesn't mention Kuria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not confident you are identifying the same three sources, but I’ve scratched my keep vote. Please be civil.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to sources 2, 7 and 10, which are the ones Procyon117 said were "probably okay." This is the second time in a matter of minutes you've accused me of incivility. What was uncivil about my comment? You are a very experienced editor, so I am genuinely trying to understand what you saw in Procyon117's sources that I didn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I tried having a crack at it even though I'm not the best at analysing sources. Source 7 I think actually does mention Kuria, albeit with the name Njiru (I went by the beginning of the article, which does use Njiru). Procyon117 (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wasn't convinced that notability was met, I probably should have clarified. Procyon117 (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procyon117, I apologize for my mistake (wasn't looking for alternate names) and have adjusted my comment above. I still think it's not WP:SIGCOV since it's just a single mention. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and upon reading your rebuttal of sources 2, 7 and 10, I agree with you. Procyon117 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dclemens1971's source analysis demonstrates clearly that most sources are passing or no mentions and don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khon Kaen Silk Festival

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

Unsourced two sentence orphaned article that's been tagged for improvement for 4 years. I'm struggling to find any sources that show it meets WP:GNG, as everything either seems to be a simple "here is when the festival is" or Wikipedia mirror content. CoconutOctopus talk 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Thailand. CoconutOctopus talk 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge into the Culture section of Khon Kaen, if I could actually find a suitable reference for it. Since I can't, I might have to lean delete for now. Procyon117 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty years later, I've added a bit more and some sources (I don't use ref tags, but feel free to convert them if you must!). For what it's worth, I think we should keep, because it's a big event and there's certainly more to add when someone with better Thai comes along some time in the next two decades. Sources regarding rural Thailand are a bit more challenging to find, but we're hopefully still trying to reduce our Anglo-Saxon bias. Henry ^Flower 19:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those sources are independent enough for them to help the article meet GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search of the festival: [16] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this! Wasn't able to search in Thai and searching in English didn't give me anything I felt made it reach the threshold. CoconutOctopus talk 08:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as very big national or regional festival. Next time, please do research first and then nominate for deletion. Thanks ManoiCMU (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources that help this article meet the notabilitu requirements then that's fantastic, please add them. As I stated, I did search, and didn't find anything (presumably as there's not much in English about it). Please don't assume I 'didn't do research'. CoconutOctopus talk 08:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

94.3 The Fish

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

WP:SIGCOV Alexeyevitch^(talk) 19:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 19:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in a cursory web search; maybe someone with access to NZ news archives could find something, but I'm not seeing any coverage at all, significant or not. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social radicalism

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

Unless I see sources distinguishing the two—the article presently cites none (!) whatsoever—this seems to overlap entirely with Radical politics. Remsense ‥ 论 18:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- these are clearly different. The first is "the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system," formerly used to describe Radicalism (historical) and now fully general, across the political spectrum. The second is "is a political philosophy and variety of radicalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical radicalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance." So, the first is just "being radical" and the second is "a specific radical and usually centre to centre-left political philosophy".

While I'm not sure these refer to the same thing, here are a few sources that mention the term "social radicalism", one of which is an entire book about it (found by googling "social radicalism" in quotes):

See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22social+radicalism%22 for some more. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap entirely was a misnomer on my part. I am immensely skeptical given the lack of reification of this term that it should be given its own article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Pataliputra

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

"Principality of Pataliputra" is an unsourced term and the content of this article is about the city for which we already have an excellent article Pataliputra. This article appears to be a POV fork of that article, primarily designed to push the idea of a continuity between mythology (the Magadha kingdoms described in Hindu mythological texts) and history (the Mauryas) RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark I am unable to understand wha is your argument of of Mythological Hindu Magadha Kingdom and Mauryas since this article is related to none of them its about a polity that existed after fall of Kanvas and until rise of Guptas. Edasf «Talk» 13:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all your argumetns are wrong
- The article is not about the city
- The article is not about any mythological kingdom
- The article is not a POV fork, as i took nothing from city article and it is not related to it.

JingJongPascal (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the article subject in the sources provided; seems to be largely WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for the magadha between kanvas and guptas is very scarce. But as per wiki guidelines, even if a article is not big or long , it doesn't mean it should be deleted WP:Stub JingJongPascal (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the first source in the article, after kanvas got defeated. Magadha became a principality centred around Pataliputra.

And according to same source, "Gupta's restored magadha to an dominant power again"

So the interval between kanvas and guptas , magadha was a principality. JingJongPascal (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that original research matters JingJongPascal. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, the article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't original research.

My sources clearly states that Magadha reduced to a principality around Pataliputra.

And it was ruled until gupta empire JingJongPascal (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the second sentence of my recent comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Airship. Can't see anything salvageable from this article, sorry. Coeusin (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per wiki guidelines, an article is not judged by its content but by the content it has the potentional for. Just because the article doesn't have important points doesn't makes the article "less salvageable",

WITHOUT this article , we are missing nearly a 300 year gap between Magadhan Empire and Gupta Empire (rulers of Magadha).

This principality was ruled by pre-imperial gupta kings. It has very less sources for it, as the info is very scarce. (Mentioned in article with proper sources mentioning that records are less).

WP:STUB JingJongPascal (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Bernard Shaw: His Plays

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

Entirely unreferenced. Of minimal interest: the only links to this page are via the Shaw and Mencken templates at the end of the article. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking anything else, many reviews on Newspapers.com. Passes NBOOK on that front. Will check more later PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw this is a Keep vote PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewed in The San Francisco Call and Post (here), The Courier-Journal (here) and The Nation (here). This is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NBOOK per reviews listed above. Toughpigs (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only are there no sources and lots of WP:OR, Mencken's biographies hardly mention it. WP:NBOOK states that coverage (such as reviews when the book came out) creates only a presumption of notability, but it is our task to decide whether the book is encyclopedically notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can go for literally any topic. We can decide to delete an article for any reason, but there's no compelling extra reason to delete this article here when it passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is entirely unreferenced and has much personal opinion in it. Tim riley talk 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was offensively opinionated so I removed that and now it's a sourced stub. It could be much longer if someone wanted to go and find more sources (and mine the existing ones, or read the book). But as is it is an ok stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's better, but if the purpose of AfD is to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in Menken's WP wheat field, this stub is definitely chaff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are supposed to delete stubs that can improve at AfD I sure missed the memo.

And in any case this has much improved since then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three reviews in minor papers from 1906 really isn't sufficient pass NBOOK. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three reviews from newspapers now would be enough to pass, so why not? NBOOK needs two non trivial (or short) reviews. Unless it's on some fringe theory that's been since disproven to where it's impossible to cover it with the contemporary sources without violating our other policies, it does very much count. This book is about literary criticism. I figured there was much more anyway, and as seen below there was. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. I am inclined to agree with Ssilvers, and SchroCat quantifies this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep with many thanks to ReaderofthePack. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to agree with PARAKANYAA in that this does pass NBOOK. If a source is considered to be something reliable that could give notability, it doesn't really matter how major or minor the source is - all that matters is that it could give notability. To that end, these sources do accomplish that and give notability, so the book technically passes NBOOK at this point. What we should be looking at would be the following:

Is there enough out there to flesh this book out beyond a stub?
Does the existing sourcing give off a strong enough suggestion that more sourcing is available, just not readily available on the internet?

The first is one I'm still trying to answer, but the second question is the one I'm more concerned with because answering that would give me a more clear answer to the first question. And so far, the answer seems to be that there is more out there - it's just not readily available on the internet or at least isn't coming up easily in searches. For example, this news source mentions it as one of the two books that put Mencken on the map, so to speak, and that it also helped make Shaw more of a household name. Then there's this 2002 review of a biography on Mencken. It mentions much of the same - that it helped put both authors on the map - the review also mentions a bit of the biographer's literary criticism of Mencken's Shaw book. So there's more out there - we just have to dig for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)

This book by Oxford University Press mentions that there were many reviews, further bolstering my belief that there's more coverage out there - it just isn't easy to locate, either because of how generic this title is or because it's just not available on the internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, SchroCat, Gog the Mild - what is your opinion on the article now - I've greatly expanded the article. I've started looking for sourcing using just "George Bernard Shaw" and "Mencken" - this has helped immensely. It seems that when places do cover Mencken on Shaw, they are almost always discussing the book itself.

As far as outlets go, this source mentions that outlets that reviews the book include the Boston Globe, New York Times, San Francisco Bulletin, Brooklyn Eagle, Baltimore Sun, New York Post, and The Nation; the last outlet seems to have done a rather extensive review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go to work now, but I'll try to expand this more later. I want to check the academic/scholarly paper databases - the amount of times books discussed or mentioned this book, I think there's likely to be quite a bit out there that I could easily find. There's definitely more out there not as easily locatable, but it does exist. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ReaderofthePack's work on it; there now seem to be plenty of sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase

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

Quoth the KEGG database entry: Deleted entry: dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase. The entry had been drafted on the basis of a single abstract that did not provide experimental evidence of the enzyme-catalysed reaction Translated in Wikipedia terms, this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Looking at Google Scholar for entries on this enzyme likewise doesn't show any substantial results. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An enzyme removed from the IUBMB list might be worth retaining if there had been plenty of discussion of it before it was removed. However, that is not the case here. It was deleted from the enzyme list as long ago as 2007. Athel cb (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn the leftover electrons. "Dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase...is a non-existent enzyme that catalyzes the reaction..." So the article is self-refuting; if the enzyme doesn't exist, it can't very well do anything. The one cited reference doesn't mention this hypothetical enzyme. Nonexistent or hypothetical substances can be notable if they're the subject of serious study (e.g. Room-temperature superconductor) or a significant part of a work of fiction (e.g. Mithril) but elf-armor this ain't. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its certainly not impossible that such an enzyme could exist. Its just that we can't currently prove that it does with WP:RS. If we covered theoretical enzymes, there could theoretically be an enzyme that catalyzed almost any reaction in the universe, but it doesn't mean that such an enzyme exists on Earth or ever will. There could theoretically be an enzyme that does my taxes for me, but that seems pretty far fetched now doesn't it, and absent sufficient RS on point, not something we would cover. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not impossible that such an enzyme could exist. It's even plausible, but at the moment there is no information. If it's discovered, an article will be appropriate. Until then ... Athel cb (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri

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

Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, I've added plenty of reliable news sources and reviews in article such as BBC News, Independent Urdu, 24 News, India Times, DAWN etc. Siginificant coverage found on google. It sometimes spells as Mohabbat Gumshuda Meri in google sources. Siasat Daily of India and The News International of Pakistan called it one of the trending show in India [17] and Pakistan [18].Libraa2019 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The significant coverage being claimed is not reliable. Non-bylined pieces falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, mentions, and churnalism do not count towards notability. If the show was worthy of notice, the press would have written more in-depth than a brief mention, mention in a reference about an actress, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; I am opposed to this being deleted: notable cast, notable creator, coverage for verification. https://www.youlinmagazine.com/story/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-a-refreshing-tale-of-teenage-romance/MjUyOA== Review in Youlin (bylined) for example. A redirect (and merge) either to the director or to the list of the programs broadcast by the network but a Keep ~~would not shock me~~ [is also good, see below]. The coverage mentioned by Libraa10 is also an indication. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

The reliability of Youlin has been questioned in the past. I will open a discussion at RSN in a few so we can get an official consensus either way. As far as verification, that is not what qualifies a television series for inclusion. It must still have significant coverage regardless of cast or creator. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the already-mentioned coverage, one can add for example:

Neighbours and childhood best friends, Zubia (Dananeer Mubeen) and Saim (Khushhal Khan) fall madly in love with each other but both their families refuse to take the feelings of the two young adults, barely out of their teens, seriously. Misunderstandings and family honour create obstacle after obstacle for the young lovers, leading them to an ill-planned elopement.With nowhere to stay and no money, Saim and Zubia agree to a quick nikaah read by their landlord but, with Zubia’s obsessed, angry brother-in-law Danyal (Ali Raza) in hot pursuit, they have to run again. Cold, hungry and insecure, Zubia goes into shock after strangers attack her. In a fear-filled rage, she tears up the nikaahnama and runs home, while Danyal catches Saim and beats him to within an inch of his life. Zubia is barely safe at home but Saim is fighting for his life. It seems that this may be the final blow to their fragile love story.Rahat Jabeen has given us a more authentic take on the self-doubt and foolish joy of young love. Strong performances from Khushhal Khan and Dananeer Mobeen, and a solid supporting cast have brought this story vividly to life. This popular show consistently makes ratings but, as usual, repetition and stretching are threatening to make it drag.

Bylined (Sadaf Haider) in Dawn.

+Bylined review (Ozair Majeed) (https://pakistanicinema.net/2023/06/04/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-review/)

I consider there is sufficient coverage to either Keep or Redirect/merge, depending on what other users think. -Mushy Yank. 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping you, @Mushy Yank:. Discussion about Youline started here and here. For Dawn, the source is fine but its thin and only one. It is enough to verify but still needs more coverage. Pakistani Cinema is not reliable. No editorial guidelines and appears more a user generated content based on "your content" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i add repction sources on series by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri: A Refreshing Tale of Teenage Romance[reply]

Shradha Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NBIO, most of the references are extremely poor or straight up paid articles about her company. [19][20] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she won a made up in one day award for an up and coming but ultimately run of the content creator. Sources are the usual deprecated ones that are actually advertising. Bearian (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bahrain. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without a convincing source analysis from the nominator, I am not seeing a valid reason to assume WP:SIGCOV isn’t met.4meter4 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both references are essentially the subject's CV. Not WP:IS, not WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For better or worse, the consensus is that diplomats are not notable absent evidence. Appointed officials need significant coverage and aren’t automatically notable. There are two sources, both of which appear to be primary sources. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The peer-reviewed journal articles and nonprofit databases (GuideStar, ProPublica) provide support for notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest photographs

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

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

Keep, the page is very well sourced and meets WP:GNG, the topic is established and valid (see its External links), and the page is well presented and offers links to some of the most extraordinary photographs. It fails nothing. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. A lot of this article comes across as original research. Most of the individual photographs are not notable on their own either. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is sourced, well-structured and I wouldn’t call this ’cruft’, given the sources provided. Meets the requirements for notability of lists. Large photographs are a very notable topic as a set: https://resources.culturalheritage.org/pmgtopics/2009-volume-thirteen/13_12_Freeman.html Also see Taylor, L. (2020). The Materiality of Exhibition Photography in the Modernist Era: Form, Content, Consequence. Taylor & Francis. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs count toward notability of the article in question? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's one element that shows the topic of this list is notable as a set. And that is the requirement for the notability of lists. Mushy Yank (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It most definitely is not. This is a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs. It does not discuss the set of such things, or attempt to classify them in any way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While there might be something to say about the topic of large photographs generally, that doesn't extend to the wanton listing of the minutiae of random large photographs. Most of this material is clearly promotional (complete with inline external links), and there's no way to verify any sort of ranking of these, other than that they're "large", generally measured only in pixels (except for the one actual large pinhole camera-generated one). The claims above of good sourcing already in the article are simply not right. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this promotional? The EL? Feel free to remove them. As for the rest, the list is far from being indiscriminate (nom's rationale; which is echoed in your !vote by "random"/"wanton") or not verifiable. What sources do you consider unreliable and which entries seem to lack sources, according to you? Mushy Yank (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the essay 'cruft' has nothing to do with policy or guidelines nor is a valid reason to delete. As to nomination language, articles do not 'fail' an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a topic being "established" also has nothing to do with policy or guidelines and is not a valid reason to keep something. Nor is having a lot of links to pretty pictures. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fact that a topic is established (as notable) has a lot to do with notability guidelines. Did anyone mention pretty pictures but you? (And on top of that, in an article about photographs access to quality images might even be considered a valid argument in favour of the existence of a list (as opposed to a category)). ("Well presented" is more about structure, content and prose than image, imv). Mushy Yank (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, my "note" above was a direct retort to Randy Kryn's utterly bafflingly nonsensical "note" immediately preceding it, in which he seems to try to argue against a poor rationale in the nomination (ignoring other parts of it). My retort was to call him out for making an even worse "keep" statement. And no, being "an established topic" doesn't even mean anything. You stealthily added "(as notable)" parenthetically, but it could just as well be established (as non-notable). And it's also not established as notable; that's what we're here to argue about. And nowhere has anyone (including you) presented even a whiff of evidence that this meets NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not exactly what I would call friendly in your mention of other users' opinions, you're aware of that, aren't you? So, you're not satisfied with the sources presented nor with those on the page, nor with the book reference above. OK. One last try. You obviously have coverage for this in the Guinness Book (just check please); please also see Panoramic and Immersive Media Studies Yearbook (2024), De Gruyter (pp 299-300); or see lists like this https://www.pcmag.com/news/10-jaw-dropping-gigapixel-photos A lead section with context and more history of the records and milestones would not hurt, though. (PS- "stealthily", really? when I'm just making the obvious, explicit; but I'll assume good faith and consider you're not playing with words.) Mushy Yank (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RSP: "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.". I have no access to the book you mention, so can't assess that one. And the PCmag article is just a listicle. Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks for ad revenue and do nothing to establish notability of a topic. The simple fact is that stuff surrounding this is inherently promotional. The most common site used (Gigapan) is a commercial site for selling merchandise and thus not independent of its subject. We also have no way of knowing if these things are truly the largest, if any comparably large ones are not listed here, etc etc. This stuff falls squarely within WP:NOT territory. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness was more for verification that the topic (not the entries) was notable (I always understood the mention of Guinness at RSP as regarding individual entities but let’s simply discard it). There are quite a number of independent sources for each item I verified (I’ve added a couple) and the numbers are verifiable. Various EL can be removed. Yes, lists are sometimes not great journalism but again they seem to be an easy way to show a given topic has attracted attention as a set. Thanks, anyway. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other languages. Examples (I deliberately avoided Gigapan-related results; articles including approach of the topic as a set). French: https://gate.first-id.fr/?redirectHost=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesnumeriques.com%2Ffirst-id&redirectUri=%2Fappareil-photo-numerique%2F365-gigapixels-taille-nouvelle-plus-grande-photo-terrestre-n42425.html (2015) https://www.yonder.fr/news/culture/la-plus-grande-photo-du-monde-365-gigapixels-represente-le-mont-blanc#:~:text=70%20000%20%3A%20le%20nombre%20de,%3A%20l'altitude%20du%20shooting. (2015) https://www.20minutes.fr/insolite/1615771-20150526-plus-grande-photo-monde-panorama-mont-blanc (2015) Spanish https://www.xatakafoto.com/actualidad/el-top10-de-las-fotografias-mas-grandes (a list; 2019) Sources for (recent or less recent) individual items are easy to find. Mushy Yank (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit at loss regarding what is meant to be captured in this article... Looking through sources provided in the article and this discussion, most of them seem to discuss digital photography, in particular mosaic or composite images, and very rarely as a set (outside of some "top 10" lists). At best, some articles discuss technical challenges of large-scale photography as a whole (i.e. physical constraints to capture, display and preserve non-digital artwork; processing, 'stitching', storage and other technical constraints related to the production and display of digital artwork), but I don't see much depth in discussion of "largest photographs" as a whole, in particular high-quality, authoritative sources regarding the evolution of "largest photographs" by type, nature or category. Are there articles that argue or at least consider if satellite-captured digital images (over several months or years) should be compared to digital images of artwork? Are building wraps or edited photographs included alongside non-edited images, and if so what is the limit between compositing and editing?... What sources or definitions should be used as a basis for this article? Shazback (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think there is something valuable and encyclopedic in listing photographs that have pushed the bounds of size and scale in photography. I'm with Shazback and the nominator on the fact that term "largest" is somewhat poorly defined and therefore indiscriminate. However, I think that might be solved by better defining the list in the lead and curating the list appropriately. That isn't something we can or should do at AFD. This is an issue best solved on the article's talk page through the WP:CONSENSUS process and through normal editing.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, gives good explanations of the various interpretations by which photograph can be "biggest." Hyperbolick (talk)|
Keep – Per Mushy Yank. Svartner (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium

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

Creator claims such small stadiums are inherently notable; I don't think that's true at all. Article was moved back into draft space by User:Mccapra, and creator moved it back to main space twice. Their argument? "The subject is encyclopedic, the article is well-sourced, and there is nothing in it beyond what is present in the Polish-language article." But the first thing is untrue and certainly questionable, the second is ridiculous (the link is to a user-generated database of stadiums), and the first is irrelevant on the English wiki. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of keeping the article. Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium may not stand out significantly from other stadiums, but it represents a typical example of local sports infrastructure, much like other stadiums already included in the encyclopedia. To provide context, I reviewed two randomly selected stadiums—Stjörnuvöllur and Akranesvöllur—and found them similarly modest in scale. Deleting Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium based on the argument presented here could set a precedent for removing numerous comparable entries, which doesn’t align with our established approach to such topics. While I understand the concerns raised, I believe the article is well-sourced and falls within the scope of what we consider encyclopedic. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stadiums are generally notable. The article only has one source, though, that doesn't help with GNG, so we have to do a source search, not a blanket AfD. And what we see is that the stadium has been covered in secondary sources: [21] [22] (looks like the same story) [23] [24] (about hooligans who vandalized it.) Now those may not be a clear GNG pass, but they are all from the past month. It should be relatively easy to write a decent little article about this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again we're missing the point here - since the article was sent to AfD, there's been some expansion with some sources which I think are fine (some don't count like transfermarkt), but more importantly there's at least one site - stadiony.pl - which includes news about the stadium back to 2009, and while some of it is self published others appear to be copies of articles published about the stadium. Polish football is generally well documented and a search of "Stadion Siarki Tarnobrzeg" brings up even more material which clearly clears GNG. There's news going back to 2013 for instance [25]. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ all sports stadiums are not notable, and small local stadiums generally aren’t. There is nothing architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive about this one as far as I can see. Most towns have a stadium like this, just like they have a police station and a post office. Mccapra (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The test isn't about whether they are "architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive." The test is whether they've been covered in secondary sources, and this one clearly has. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SportingFlyer – notability is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just architectural or cultural significance. I’ve also expanded the article to provide more context, which supports its notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe better merge into Siarka Tarnobrzeg. Per WP:NSTADIUM, stadiums are not generally notable and has to meet WP:GNG criteria. WP:GNG says that "significant coverage is not a guarantee that a subject merits its own article". Currently used sources do not demonstrate notability, and the vandalism articles are not even "significant coverage". The vandalism is not a historical event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper to collect such events of local importance. So I suggest deleting this paragraph and moving the rest to the club as a section, which should satisfy everyone involved. FromCzech (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siarka Tarnobrzeg as possible search term. Giant Snowman 10:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I maintain my stance for KEEP, especially since I have updated the article to include the fact that this stadium hosted Siarka Tarnobrzeg during their three seasons in the top Polish league. This clearly indicates that it is not just an insignificant stadium. Surely, we wouldn't delete the stadium of an Ekstraklasa club – following that logic, we should also consider removing Františka Kloze Stadium (in Czechia), which is also "just a building." I kindly ask you to reconsider your position. Paradygmaty (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot vote twice. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Gajec

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

Previous PROD by User:Mccapra was deleted. Subject is simply not notable--being mayor of a small city does not confer notability, no secondary sourcing proving notability is provided, and the two short web articles linked, one of which is simply an obit, don't give any indication that the man lived a life that made him notable. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the concerns raised about Andrzej Gajec's notability, but I believe the article should be kept. Serving as the mayor of Stalowa Wola for several years gives him a certain local prominence, which is relevant within the context of Polish municipal politics. Although his political career may not have garnered significant national attention, his role in a city of this size is still noteworthy and reflects a level of civic responsibility. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nomination. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small town mayor for 3 yrs in the late 20th Century doesn't give you notability. Sources simply confirm this person held the post and I don't find anything about them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a mayor is not inherently notable (and certainly not for a small place with a population of less than 60,000). His certain local prominence is not an indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Meters (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Benedict School of Novaliches

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

No sources since 2010. Only references online are primary or social media about the school. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect to Caloocan#Education be appropriate you reckon? Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that could work. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caloocan#Education per Procyon117. Royiswariii Talk! 10:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caloocan#Education per Procyon117. Besides being unreferenced, the school is not notable enough to have its stand-alone article. AstrooKai (Talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Jam Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP. C F A 💬 14:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Canada. C F A 💬 14:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an iota of notability. Paid editing is almost certain, but perhaps this is one of those cold call Wikipedia article creation service. Look at all the highly non-notable articles created by the same creator https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/0564401~enwiki Graywalls (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angersbach

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

Fails GNG; no people with the surname on Wikipedia. C F A 💬 14:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect to Wartenberg, Hesse is an ATD. Angersbach is a geo dab in the German Wikipedia, which points to two subdivisions of municipalities. The Angersbach in Isen, Bavaria isn't mentioned in our article, but the one in Wartenberg is. Geschichte (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Italy by time in office

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

Unsourced, and has no information that isn't present in List of presidents of Italy, apart from 'cause of end of term' (which could easily be added). Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really to merge, and per same rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office. Procyon117 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIST (satellite)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a few articles as well: [26], [27], [28], [29]. The DN article is a bit below SIGCOV level of the project but together I think it meets WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widdows

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced that coverage found by Beaniefan in local newspapers is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Luc Peters

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

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

Comment unlike the many other darts players that came here because of mass-rejected prods, this person actually has news articles about him and not just a place in stats databases like the others. [30] [31]. I'll comment back with a !vote once I finish my WP:BEFORE. Molecular Pilot 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just routine reporting of him getting a tour card. 20-30 players do this annually. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav September Offensive

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

The article does not meet the criteria for a wikipedia page , as it has no information on the offensive itself , and the sources used only speak about the aftermath. The sources are also hard to verify , one of them is a blog post which is not a reliable source according to wikipedia's guidelines. The other source comes from a deleted website so it is hard to verify. The article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with you. The page, in a literal sense, doesn't even contain a single sentence about an actual offensive or what happened. It seems the creator of the page made it simply because a source mentioned an offensive in September. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorke Sherwood

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The great majority of his roles are uncredited. He barely gets passing mentions here and there, e.g. in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the required notability guideline for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG per lack of sources. Google search did not show anything indicative of their notability. Mekomo (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For silent film, Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 19:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not rare for actors of early cinema to be uncredited. Given the number of roles he had, he could be considered meeting Wikipedia:NACTOR as a prolific actor in notable productions ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (emphasis mine) -Mushy Yank. 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a number of his roles, they're verifiable so Keep per my argument above. Fwiw, trying to improve the page btw. -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Most of his films are talkies, and all but two of his 15 silents are shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would this contradict what I said in any way or render insignificant the changes I’ve made? What does it matter if the films are short or not or silent or not? (To be clear, I did not check the numbers and they may be correct but what does this change to the fact that he had a prolific career in the film industry as actor? It would rather confirm it, indicating longevity and a career spanning over silent and talking film eras, if anything, so all the more notable imv.)

PS- unless your comment is about my reply to Mekomo. In which case, i maintain it because I suppose he was best known for his early films but feel free to amend it and add early/pre-internet/old to my comment, which you are free to disagree with, if you wish; anyway, a Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 22:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His roles are not significant, as required by NACTOR, in either the silent or sound eras. He worked in the silent era at a time when full-length features were common and actors were credited; the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited underlines his non-notability. Also, his talkie credits are almost all uncredited, not the sign of a notable actor, but rather that of a journeyman. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of Rebuttal No. No No.

1) Please. Read the guideline again or my !vote again. One of the criteria for NACTOR is

The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

Emphasis mine. Prolific.

I did not count but hard to say his contribution was not prolific.

2) he meets that criterion imv; but some of his roles can be considered significant anyway; watch the film I linked; open the articles, some mention his roles with a praise, and I haven't added all that there his. He is a notable supporting actor in my view.

3) "the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited" seems inaccurate. And his presence is always sourceable with books/newspapers sources (I can add 3 refs for each film, you can help if that's your concern)......Or just open the film on the page for example, he is credited and not at the bottom of a 15-minute end credits scroll.

4)The fact that it is a short is totally irrelevant. You don't like short films? sorry to hear that but the fact that they are short (up to 40 minutes...) has nothing to do with their notability nor, consequently, the actor's. Nothing at all.

Anyway, I have added quite a few things to the page. Thank you for your concern.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And p. 151 and 543 of the book you mention in your opening statement are not passing mentions, rather significant coverage, one being a full biographic entry. -Mushy Yank. 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Alberto Ramírez

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

Even when searching in conjunction with his former clubs, I was unable to obtain any significant coverage towards WP:SPORTBASIC. His career took place largely in the second tier of Mexico and was painfully brief. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Playing in lower clubs is still a weak claim to notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG -Samoht27 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Cámara

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

Cámara has/had a very brief career but my own searches failed to yield any significant coverage, so potentially fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, no credible claim to significance or notability. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient attempt to establish notability. Lack of significant coverage as noted by OP. C 679 15:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José de Jesús López

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

Despite a brief career in the second tier of Mexico, I can't find any evidence of significant coverage, even when searching in conjunction with the club that he played for. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Playing in lower clubs is still a weak claim to notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magadhan Empire

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

Redundant POV fork created after merging content from Magadha, without any discussion or consensus, this article stayed as a redirect for over 18 years before too. Nxcrypto Message 11:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic certainly has notability and large coverage in scholarly sources to have a separate article on it (see Scholar or Books). Scholars describe the entity that existed from Bimbisara till the Kanvas as the Magadhan Empire. The article was not forked per se; it is a new article mostly, as the content about later dynasties and the lead are new, while the content about the Haryankas were moved from Magadha to this article. Historians make a distinction between the Magadha and the Magadhan Empire as seperate polities, with the latter being founded by Bimbisara and the former being a Mahajanapada of the Vedic era, as well as region based in it. PadFoot (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No scholar describes or conflates two different polities which existed in the same region with a break of at least 300 years between them as the "Magadhan Empire" . This article appears to be a pseudohistorical narrative created solely to promote nationalist POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, I, the creator, had not included the Guptas in this article, it was included without consensus by the nominator, it is clearly the nominator who is POV pushing. He has been edit warring for the inclusion of the Guptas into this article and created a GIF showing the two together. See revision history of the article itself. PadFoot (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, the Gupta mentions have been removed. PadFoot (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly has sources supporting it's legitimacy and is not a POV fork in anyway.

"Mahajanapada" clearly means a kingdom during the Vedic and post Vedic period, Magadhan Empire exceeds this period and hence should not BE merged within "Magadha" article. The article's header clearly has sources mentioning the dynasties which ruled the empire and hence justifying it's legitimacy. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal Read WP:POVFORK, It says "In contrast POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." There was no consensus for creating this separate article. Creating it only for pushing a POV is not allowed. Nxcrypto Message 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'POV' here. The article is about the Imperial entity of Magadha.

But the 'Magadha' is the article about the Mahajanapada.

A Mahajanapada is a kingdom which existed in india during vedic period, and hence should/ does not extent much.

Other than that PadFoot has provivded source the 'empire' in the first Paragraph of the article only. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV Fork would be when he makes two articles about same things with minor differences on his POV.

This ISNT POV fork. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Ratnahastin. This could be the definition of POV fork. There might be room for an article like Chinese Empire for India, but this isn't it. Coeusin (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is it a POV fork?

There are clear sources indicating the legitimacy of the article. Seems pretty dubious to me , announcing it as a "POV fork"

A POV fork means extracting a article and creating a new one similar to it .

While this is of a different political entity.

Magadha and Magadhan Empire are 2 different things.

Magadha was a mahajanapada aswell as a region. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin, Ratnahastin made the argument that no scholar includes Guptas in the Magadhan Empire, but there is no mention of the Guptas in the article at all now. Besides, did you look at Google scholar to see if historians talk about it? If you would've (which you presumably didn't), you would have noticed a very significant coverage of it by scholars. It is a mainstream topic in ancient Indian history. It is not a fork, it is a completely seperate article, I only moved some content about the early dynasties, the majority of the information including the lead, is completely new. The Magadha article is about the Mahajanapada which predated the empire, and the region that later went on to form the core of it. PadFoot (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008, the Magadha article is fine. That's where this content should end, also. Ratnahastin did not mention the Guptas in his message and his point still stands. @JingJongPascal, it is a POV Fork between the already existing articles for the separate Indian empires and this. I looked at your sources and even them aren't categorical about the existence of a Magadhan Empire; instead, this is a term just being used to refer to the various polities in this period of Indian history, centered around what was the historic Magadha kingdom. This article is pushing an interpretation of unbroken continuity amongst these various kingdoms. Coeusin (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin, Ratnahastin did not mention the Guptas? You seem to completely miss his point. He says here: No scholar describes or conflates two different polities which existed in the same region with a break of at least 300 years between them as the "Magadhan Empire" The two polities he mentions which have a gap of 300 years between them are the first Magadhan Empire and the second Magadhan Empire (Guptas). PadFoot (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008, and between the Haryankas and the Kanvas there is a gap of 340 years. Doesn't the point still stand? Coeusin (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin, So the opinion of scholars doesn't matter? Historians such as Sailendra Nath Sen, R.C. Majumdar, V.D. Mahajan all mention it in their works:
"Ancient Indian History and Civilization", Sailendra Nath Sen:
Thus the foundation of the Magadhan empire laid by Bimbisara was now firmly established as a result of the subtle diplomacy of Ajatasatru. [...] Though the Sungas did not play any conspicuous part in Indian history they at least arrested the tide of foreign invasion and saved the Magadhan empire from disintegration.

"Ancient India", RC Majumdar:
The Kanva dynasty, founded by Vasudeva, comprised only four kings, and ruled over the Magadhan empire for a period of 45 years. The fourth king Susarman was overthrown by the Andhras in or about 27 B. C.

PadFoot (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008, of course it does! The fun thing about social sciences is how they are built, from disagreements between scholars and the constant income of new methods and evidence. Of course, sometimes new arguments come with political/economic/we motivation behind them, but that's just part of the game. Weber, 120 years ago, established how nothing that's written in the social sciences is fully objective, and that's fine. The sources you cite have biases, just as the ones I will cite now do. Let's first look at "The Oxford History of India" (1919), perhaps the first source that comes to mind when we think about Indian history. Its chapters are sorted in the following manner:
Book I: Ancient India
Prehistoric India

Literature...

The pre-Maurya States

Book II: Hindu India from the beginning of the Maurya Dynasty in 322 B.C. to the 7th century A.C.
Chandragupta Maurya, the first historical emperor of India...

But let's look at another, more recent, source. "Main trends in the historiography of the early Maurya Empire since independence", by Shankar Goyal (1995). In it, though he does use the term Magadhan Empire to talk about the Mauryan dynasty, he also quotes the following from Romila Thapar about the Mauryas and Magadhan:
The Mauryan state was an empire to the extent that it did control a large territory with culturally differentiated peoples and its nucleus, the state of Magadha, was enriched by the flow of revenue and resources from other regions.

Afterwards, he discusses another trend in the literature in the following manner:
On certain points Bongard-Levin's observations are difficult to be accepted. For example, his assumption that slavery was widespread in Magadha and the neighbouring areas whereas in some of the more outlying regions, the tribal system still prevailed (p. 176), is difficult to be conceded.

In conclusion, there may as well be many other works in the historiography where the various pre-Maurya dynasties and the Maurya, mostly centered around Pataliputra, are grouped together as Magadhan Empires (or even Empire), but that is a point of view in academia, far from unanymous and likely fringe. Far more common seems to be the use of Magadha simply as the geographical region centered around Pataliputra, the ancient imperial capital. The Latin, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires all had Constantinople as their capital, but were they continuations of the same entity? The various rulers of the Magadhan states also didn't share a common religion. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin, A common religion? A religion doesn't matter in the slightest here. We do not talk of capitals here at all. In fact, the Magadhan Empire didn't have a single capital throughout its existence, similar to many other historical entities. Capitals too do not matter at all. The Magadhan Empire had a clear continuity and was a single unbroken continuously existing polity. The Sisunagas overthrew the Haryankas in a rebellion. The Nandas murdered the last Sisunaga. The Mauryas again overthrew the last Nanda in a rebellion. The Śungas assasinated the last Maurya. The Kanvas assasinated the last Śunga. There is a clear continuity here and the existence of a singular polity where dynasties follow in quick succession. They didn't 'conquer' each other. The Ottoman Empire existed side by side the Byzantine Empire and the former ended up conquering the latter. We don't have a continuity or a single polity. Lastly, there are simply numerous sources that assert its existence. Just look at Google Scholar. It is not in the slightest a fringe topic. PadFoot (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Coeusin, the 1919 source not mentioning Magadhan Empire does not constitute an argument against it. A source not mentioning it doesn't mean that it presents an argument against it. No scholar says that "Magadhan Empire" is biased topic. PadFoot (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the lack of a mention that is the main point, rather the treatment of Chandragupta as the first Emperor. Before then, V. A. Smith quite emphatically treats the states as kingdoms, which is a big distinction. Coeusin (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008, seeing as I am almost as far away geographically and spiritually from the Eastern religions and their place of birth as possible, I do not see what I could possibly have at stake here. Alas; the fact that the other dynasties didn't come to Pataliputra as conquerors doesn't really mean much - take, for instance, the times when kingdoms absorved other kingdoms through marriage in Europe. Charles the Bold's death meant the end of Burgundy, though the palace and court in Dijon remained.

If we do not talk of capitals here, we should, for that is the main (and perhaps only) link between all the various dynasties mentioned in the article. Finally, the quantity of mentions in Google Scholar do not matter as much as they usually would; the term seems often to be used to refer only to the Mauryas (as it was during the time of the Mauryas), as in the example I cited above, or referring to the geographical region, centered around the ancient kingdom's core lands. Ideally, we should be able to find a paper analysing these as historical currents, but so far I've had no luck. Regards, Coeusin (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin Apologies for accusing you of bias. It doesn't appear to me that you have any bias at all. It seems to me that you are a good faith editor. But even then, do you not see the continuity as I described above? Why should you think that a single polity cannot have more than one ruling family?. See Duchy of Moscow, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of England and countless other entities, all these had multiple dynasties. Certainly, you would not think that their capital alone makes them a single entity? PadFoot (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin? PadFoot (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @PadFoot2008, I have a paper due tomorrow lol. Yes, states with various ruling families can be a single polity, just as they can not be! Also, I thought all the dynasties the article named shared Pataliputra as a capital, was this not the case? Thanks, Coeusin (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for disturbing you then. Feel free to respond at a later time. They did share a common capital. And I showed you the unbroken continuity above as well. Scholars for this reason refer to the 544 to 28 BC polities as the First Magadhan Empire while the Guptas were referred to as the Second Magadhan Empire. PadFoot (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article has a source clearly stating that ....

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Oi7lzN6-W5MC&redir_esc=y

Pg - 28 JingJongPascal (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote it for me? Thanks! Coeusin (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yeah, adding the Guptas here would be particularly bad. Look how silly it looks in the Indian Empire disambig. Coeusin (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TL;DR this article is a mess of unbalanced source misrepresentation and WP:SYNTHESIS which fundamentally misunderstands academic historiography, but it still retains a smidgen of potential. Here's why:
- Yes, Magadha was often a nucleus of the states/dynasties mentioned, who for centuries tended to have their capital at Pataliputra. Thus, they can all be termed "Magadhan" empires. However, this article's construction of a single continuous "Magadhan Empire" that lasted from the sixth century to the first century is unfounded in historical thought. The dynasties it claims to comprise were distinct and presenting them as chronologically contiguous does push a certain POV.
- Here, then, is what I would propose. This article should be renamed to "Magadhan polities" or similar—certainly it should not be in the singular. Most of the article should be cut so that it employs summary style to discuss all the polities it covers, not the overwhelming bias towards Maurya that we currently see. The frankly-pitiful sub-articles such as Foreign relations of Magadha should be deleted (I have now nominated it).
In the end, what would be achieved is a really quite encyclopedic summary of the "Magadhan polities" which details their evolution and differences. So if you wnt to quantify that into a !vote, it would be weak keep but only with renaming and complete reorganisation, otherwise delete. In short, something needs to be done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"combining different dynasties", An Empire and Dynasty are different things. Serveral dynasties can rule a single political entity.

PadFoot has clearly mentioned sources above by scholars stating it as the Magadhan Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My above comment clearly explains why I believe that is misinterpretation of the sources. A productive response would engage with my comment, not duplicate PadFoot2008's reasoning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I will go with deleting this article. The Magadha Empire page is not really necessary, as the information about the monarchs of Magadha is already covered in the List of monarchs of Magadha. The details about the various dynasties and rulers of Magadha can be effectively presented in that list, rendering a separate page for the "Magadha Empire" is redundant. It might be more efficient to focus on consolidating the information in the list rather than creating an additional, separate page and this might be Fork too, Although this is just my opinion, correct me if I am wrong here.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with AirshipJungleman29. It can be kept as a summary article under a different name otherwise it should be deleted. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pseudohistorical or fabricated concept that nobody heard outside Wikipedia. Lorstaking (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of repeating now but ever looked at the sources presented inside the article or ones I listed above, or even looked at Scholar or Books? PadFoot (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's your responsibility to present the modern academic sources or a scholarly consensus which explicitly states that there was a singular, continuous political entity called Magadhan Empire between 544 BC – 28 BC. So far you have done nothing like that, as it stands currently the article is a WP:SYNTH mess connecting disparate polities under the umbrella term "Magadhan Empire". - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has provided several quotes from book itself above. Maybe consider reading them JingJongPascal (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Grehan (rugby league)

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

Non-notable RL player. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT as there doesn't seem to be any coverage other than routine announcements and match reports. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Shukuup

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I converted most of the sources to use our {{cite}} templates. I did a search as well, and the only reference I'm able to find is Triplook which Copan is the city of the Maya located in the western part of the country near Guatemala. It is the largest monument of ancient civilizations on the territory of Honduras. Copan was founded in the I century A.D. In the 7th and 8th centuries, it was the center of the ancient Mayan Kingdom Shukuup - I'm not convinced by this source, as Copán is a Good Article and doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Also, none of the English Language links in the footer mention the kingdom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 08:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sweet. The #1 search result for "Kingdom of Shukuup" is this AfD. Which I think is sort of 'nuff said, really... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't seem to be a hoax, but IMO not salvageable either. I think the correct Latin-script title would be "Xukuup". Here is an article that intermittently discusses the "Xukuup dynasty" at Copán, while expressing some uncertainty about whether that is the correct character reading. The use of this as the name of the state of which Copán was the capital seems to be found in some seemingly valid Russian-language scholarly sources but not to be otherwise widespread. I don't think this is especially salvageable in its current state, although in theory it would be optimal to have separate articles about the ancient polity and the modern archeological site, as the RU and UK wikis do. As an alternative to deletion I would suggest possibly a move to Xukuup + redirect to Copán -- but that redirect could also be set up regardless of whether this is deleted. -- Visviva (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:53, 17 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 Eastern Tennessee seismic zone. There is no "seismic events" section of this target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eastern Tennessee seismic zone#Seismic events as an alternative to deletion. No sustained continued coverage post-2018 or any lasting effects that would justify a standalone article for this event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eastern Tennessee seismic zone is more appropriate action on this. Those wanting information about this for whatever reason could land there. Mekomo (talk) 13:26, 17 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.

WITHDRAWN

Withdrawing as the book demonstrates significant coverage. Thank you to the editor that found it. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elio García-Austt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are maybe 8 lines about him in "Past, present, and future of sleep medicine research in Latin America" [32], an entire book about him in "Elio García-Austt Negri (1919-2005) El uruguayo que fundó la Sociedad Española de Neurociencia" [33], and what looks like a cv (dated 1999) from the Premios Morosoli [es] [34] I'd be happier with more sources but I think those are independent and reliable enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entire book on him is sufficient for me to feel that other non-English coverage is likely to exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

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

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

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

I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [35], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [36]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent

Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
Ref 9 ditto
Ref 10 ditto
Ref 11 ditto
Ref 12 ditto
Ref 13 ditto
Ref 14 interview
Ref 15 interview
Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things regarding primary sources.

Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.

With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Latham

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. All-time New England Revolution roster would not be an appropriate target article as it has been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been replaced by List of New England Revolution players, so redirect there instead. Giant Snowman 21:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kitt

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

He was involved in a minor controversy in 2024 with David Coote (referee) but I don't think he is notable on his own and definitely not of sustained notability FMSky (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we can add more info about his time playing cricket, but I've never really learned cricket rules or terms, so we could try reaching out to a Wikipedian who likes cricket. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@That Northern Irish Historian I've added a cricket career section with what I could find but he never played for the Nottinghamshire first XI so there isn't much. Just an article featuring his debut for Cornwall, then another that details his signing for Nottinghamshire and two about his subsequent release from the club. I'm not going to vote but if this was a cricket based biography there's no way he'd warrant inclusion in Wikipedia in my opinion. Shrug02 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCRICK having never played a game and WP:GNG. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a cricket perspective, he isn't notable as he only played at Minor Counties and Second XI level. AA (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "controversy" fails WP:NOTNEWS, and his cricket career does not meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe Hotels

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

Small Sri Lankan hotel chain. Aside from the primary source citations in this article, the rest are mostly a mixture of routine press coverage about new property openings and awards, therefore I don’t believe this crosses the threshold of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to pass WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2025

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

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON it is. This year’s edition concluded recently on November 16. As one of the Big Four beauty pageants, it is anticipated that reliable sources will soon surface as countries finalize their representatives for the 2025 edition (four of which I see are already confirmed, with sources available but not yet included in the article). Furthermore, preparations and hosting bids for the upcoming edition are already in progress, with related updates expected to emerge shortly. I recommend adding tags, a citation or notability warning, to the article, rather than opting for its complete deletion. 'Draftify' is also a recommended approach.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:V (verifiability) and WP:N (notability), the article does not cite any sources to support its claims or establish the subject's significance. It seems more like an attempt to create a page for the sake of it, rather than based on reliable and independent coverage that meets Wikipedia's standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOSOON, zero sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOSOON

نوح^فث ^{Let's Chat!} 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see WP:TOSOON as a valid reason for deletion in this case. Scheduled or expected future events that are notable and almost certain to occur should be included, as outlined in WP:FUTURE. For an event like Miss Universe, one of the Big Four beauty pageants, its 2025 edition is undoubtedly going to happen. References to its upcoming editions, such as new rules and the introduction of a Latin reality show, are already available. Additionally, host country bids are open, and some participating countries have already begun their selection processes, with a few having finalized their representatives. While the article could be considered taking to draftspace, it definitely does not warrant deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor I guess this is a keep !vote. My concerns were more about the lack of sourcing (that is, it's "too soon" to have sourcing) more than anything else. The sourcing has improved since. If only the draftification wasn't contested. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses I agree, the article lacks sources, and the "delete" votes are understandable, particularly regarding concerns about it being "too soon." However, outright deletion doesn't seem rational. For events of high significance, sources often emerge relatively quickly. I recommend exploring Spanish and Thai media, as there’s a strong likelihood of more coverage in these languages, given that the most recent edition was held in Mexico and the organizers are based in Mexico and Thailand. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor A non-unilateral draftification is a legit alternative to deletion in this circumstance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor To be clear, do you want to "draftify," "keep," or is either fine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given its significance, I would prioritize a "keep" vote (I am not against "draftify" if the consensus favours). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is not hurting anybody, also there's no need to wait until the last minute for a competition, pageant, tournament etc. to happen in order to have its Wikipedia article. Gianluca91 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirsendu

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

Sources are SPONSORED, which don’t count towards notability. The other sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed your comment on the created article. I do have more sources but I didn't add them as it conflicts with the unambiguous advertising. But I do wanna show you:.

Google Knowledge Panel: https://g.co/kgs/C3mq8zy (It is generated by google only from trusted sources)

This person seems to an artist as well. I did happen to find his Spotify artist profile: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0OSjTTuzVglE32S8qUi0rw

This person also has an official artist channel on Youtube (Channel with music note) which is only possible if he is a genuine artist: https://www.youtube.com/@shirshaw64p

This person also has a verified facebook page back from 2021 when paid verification wasn't even an option. Link: https://www.facebook.com/Shirshaw64p

This things I haven't added as it would be promotional. But from what I listed, that is why I feel like this person is notable. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nathanbyrd25 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Nathanbyrd25: These things do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTABILITY, which requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 06:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some related conversation from when this was still a draft on my talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I also found his linkedin profile and found he is a Subject Matter Expert of HackTheBox, which is a reputed cybersecurity learning platform. Can that be added? Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All links are PROMO. This is even a PR item [37] on a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removed the PR item you pointed. Thank you for guiding me. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also happened to find apple music link, will it be a promo to add it? Thanks. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Article creator seems to be relentlessly persistent in suggesting sources that don't count toward notability for reasons I don't understand, even though they have been told nicely to read the relevant guidelines. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it’s for this person. The sourcing is poor. This might have passed in 2007, but in 2024 he fails WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 06:23, 19 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 Draftified by original author‎. (non-admin closure) Procyon117 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Grbavica (Lašva Valley)

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

Unsourced right now; used to be unreliably sourced. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Red Spino has draftified the article, I’d like to withdraw the nomination. --I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:03, 17 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.

List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature

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

The topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Film, and Comics and animation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's not indiscriminate; the inclusion criterion is clear. It's not trivial; it's rather an important topic and the lead section is clear about what it is. It's not unsourced. Saying it's unencyclopaedic seems to be a personal view. I say it's encyclopaedic because it's part of the detailed history of animation and animated film awards and it's manageable. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify at least the first point, WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While there is a clear selection criteria, that criteria is broad and conveys minimal significance. That's why I find the list indiscriminate and not suitable for inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS. There's essentially no bar for submitting eligible films, and studios generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning (or even being nominated) whatsoever. While lists of eventual nominees are almost surely of sufficient notability (and noteworthiness), lists of submissions are not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at Category:Academy Awards lists, I'd recommend nominating other such submission lists for the same reasons. Of particular note are those two not-so-little subcats at the top of foreign-language film submissions, which break down even further by type. There are about an extra 200 lists in those that could stand to be mass nominated for deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why did you twice remove the AfD template from the page?~~ ~~And saying it is not nominated when you just voted here is not evidently consistent...~~.. -Mushy Yank. 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC); edited 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template was removed from List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, which has not been mentioned anywhere in this deletion discussion up to this point. It would be out of procedure to add that article to this nomination after the discussion opened. I will remove the template from that page shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My bad! My apologies, 35.139.154.158! You were right and I blindly trusted the link. sorry. But who added it to the page in the first place and why??-Mushy Yank. 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espngeek, why did you add it there?? -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the Animated Feature is about to be deleted, why not the Animated Short Film? Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to nominate it (it might look as if you were trying to make a point, given your !vote below, but it’s your call). Still, you had added the link formatted by RunningTiger123 for this discussion to a page that was not nominated for deletion and that was quite confusing (even disruptive, I must be honest with you)! You cannot do that, I’m afraid and ”merge submissions” (bundle nominations) as you suggest below would have been possible if the nominator had wished to do so but it is not the case and in tems of procedure and good practices, your copy-paste of the template was a very bad idea. Not possible anymore with this page then. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Oscar-related list do you consider important? Espngeek (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not this one, clearly, since it's up for nomination. Do you have an actual rationale behind your keep !vote, preferably addressing the concerns that have been raised by the nomimator and by me? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're asking me, I would consider lists such as the nominees at Academy Award for Best Animated Feature or the submissions in Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country suitable for inclusion. Those films have been specifically selected for further recognition, which gives them more significance than merely checking the boxes to be eligible does. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I merge the submissions onto Best Animated Feature article? Espngeek (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the issue is not whether or not this has standalone notability; the issue is that the information is so trivial that it's not worth mentioning anywhere as a matter of editorial discretion, whether that's in a standalone list or in another article/list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this one so trivial? Espngeek (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espngeek in short, no (see above). You would have to initiate another AfD but can I suggest you wait for this one to be closed so that we know what others think? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The argumment used could also be used to delete the 97 pages of the international feature films submissions, since those films were also selected for further recognition from AMPAS, and most of the countries "generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning". This list is vital to map the competition, especially now that AMPAS is even more international than ever. Martineden83 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear – I am not arguing to delete the international feature film lists in my comment you linked. When I said "selected for further recognition", I meant that a party separate from the filmmakers (whether AMPAS or some other industry group) had picked it, instead of the filmmakers submitting it. That is a major difference between those lists and this one. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree that the international films are equivalent – those submissions were formally selected by each country's film committee, while in this list, producers can self-nominate whatever animated films they made. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if producers were capable of "self-nominate" their own movies (which they are not, the submitted films are shortlisted only after reaching the category rules), the annual list is gennerally small (last year it barely had 30 films) and does not include all animated features released in the year. Martineden83 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A note on terminology since you said "shortlisted" – these are not shortlisted submissions like in other categories (example). A more apt comparison would be to compare this list to the list of films eligible for Best Picture. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see there's been disagreement about the international lists being in the same boat as this one. I'm happy to concede that point, but it doesn't really change my view about this particular list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Farnsworth

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

This is not an AfD i want to do. I absolutely love Futurama and it was one of my favorite comedy cartoons, but unfortunately, this character does not pass WP:GNG. Of the eight sources, none are independent and are only passing mentions, some don't even discuss him, at all. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and i can't find anything that talks about him.

Again, i didn't want to do this, but i have to, there is no turning back from what i am doing, so i am doing the right thing to nominate this for AfD. Toby2023 (talk) 05:02, 17 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 Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One example of a secondary source which does indeed talk about the character is "Catastrophic Future(s)", which on pp. 85-86 has significant analysis of the character and his role. A little less serious, The Mad Scientist Hall of Fame has a multi-page chapter on Farnsworth. Daranios (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also love Futurama. Running my usual source check: Found one on ScreenRant to back up the family tree. My attempts to search on Google Scholar have been jammed by the existence of real scholar Charles Hubert Farnsworth. Trying again with "Professor Farnsworth" "Futurama" and getting a good number of hits: [38]. I believe enough sourcing exists to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, this Law Review article looks like it covers the Professor's adventures particularly. I put it as a source in the article because the abstract covers the basic facts of who Farnsworth is, but anyone who can get through that paywall could use it more extensively: Justin S. Wales. "FUTURLAWMA: 21st Century Solutions to 31st Century Problems". U. Miami L. Rev. (Abstract). 87. Retrieved November 17, 2024. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, I have now added a total of four sources, three of them scholarly works that focus on this character specifically. There are more at the link above. I would like for someone to access the full text of the two that are paywalled, but for now, I have used them to support information freely visible in their abstracts. The third scholarly work is available in full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Darkfrog24:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkfrog24's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators

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

I'm not finding the needed coverage of these commentators as a grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, Horse racing, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title is badly written but I do think sports commentators who specialize in covering horse races is an appropriate list topic under WP:NLIST. There appears to be enough of them on this one network for it to be a substantial list.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs a large reformatting to bring it in line with standards (and maybe a re-titling), but the information contained within it seems like it adds value to the encyclopedia. Certainly offers more useful information than many of the other Category:Lists of horse racing commentators. RachelTensions (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thoroughbred Racing on CBS. I could not find any sources either. The only reasonble keep would be due to the length of the parent but I don't see a reason this information couldn't just be included there. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I think this is an appropriate fork of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS, but I would also support a merge to that article.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clare McCann

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

Written as a PR piece with lack of proper sourcing. References used mention very little about the subject neither are they the focus of the person. May not meet WP:GNG. AnonUser1 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of the sources appear to be offline. It's hard to assess newspaper coverage when there are no url links. Did the nominator access these sources, and if so where so we can all view them? If the nominator did not view the cited materials, then in good faith we should accept them as containing WP:SIGCOV of the subject.4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was unable to locate online any of the newspaper sources mentioned so could not verify. Some of the sources listed appear to have associated websites that publish online versions of their newspaper articles, yet none of the articles referenced seem to exist. AnonUser1 (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Blacktown Advocate is now defunct and it’s difficult to access those newspaper archives. Part of WP:AGF is that we accept off-line sources, and based on the citations it looks like that newspaper had the most in-depth coverage. I don’t think I would be comfortable supporting a deletion vote when the best materials have not been viewed.4meter4 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Blacktown Advocate articles. New break for young star - "AT JUST 22, Clare McCann has made a name for herself on the entertainment circuit, and now she's returning to where it all started. The Blacktown girl has landed the leading role as Mimi in the musical stage production Rent, due to open at the Blacktown City Community Theatre this week." Promotion for local Community Theatre event. Girls leap into squad - "THERE'S more than one way to impress girls. School mates Vlado Kurtuma and Hasim Sindel, both 16, were sitting around one afternoon after P.E. class when Parramatta Eels Cheerleader Clare McCann showed up.McCann, 20, from Doonside, runs dance classes after hours in Doonside Technology High's school hall." A call for boys to come and join cheerleading classes. Add a good voice - " ``There's a lot of girls who do dancing and are looking for something new,`` said instructor Clare McCann, who has been a Parramatta Eels Cheerleaders member for the past two years." Promotion for pen day to promote cheerleading class. Flashdancer win - "SWITCHING from hard trance to R`n'B to salsa, all in one two-minute routine, Clare McCann shuffled and spun her way to victory at the Miss Flashdancer 2006 grand final last month." Report on local winning a nightclub dance contest. Short cut to fame - "BLACKTOWN City Community Theatre's 2004 season is kicking off next week with its annual Four Short Plays Plus." "Clare McCann, of Doonside, has written and directed her second play, Fairyland, proving, at age 17 that youth is no barrier to success on the stage." One sentence in article about local Community Theatre event. Nothing significnt here. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of WP:AGF is that we accept off-line sources. Where does it say that? AGF applies to behaviour not the assumed existence of sources. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Theatre, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Given that the off-line sources have not been viewed by the nominator, I think we should accept in good faith that those sources meet WP:SIGCOV until proven otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources that i can find, and what's given in the article appears to be purely local coverage, mostly all sourced to the same media outlet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person has been active since 2007 in Australia, so finding online coverage such as in google news should be easy. She is not from say the 1940s where we would have to rely on digitized newspaper archives. A search yielded nothing indepth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment duffbeerforme's analysis of sources reinforces my delete position. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cord Records

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating

Falls short of WP:NCORP. Previously deleted with unanimous delete consensus in 2012. I'm not seeing happenings resulting in coverages in the 12 years since then that puts this company above the NCORP threshold. After it was deleted, it was re-created by a long-term undisclosed paid editor with promotional PR activity involvment. The additional sources with newer dates than the previous AfD are basically "did this..." "released this..." WP:ROUTINE events. Graywalls (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Christianity, and Illinois. Graywalls (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is all about signings, but not really about the company itself. Fails WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Woolverton

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halo Top Creamery per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. The company is notable, but it’s not clear from that coverage that he’s notable. Bearian (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Hue

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

Relying on self-promotional press releases without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one good album review here: [39] He also gets a decent brief critical nod in this Pitchfork review on another artist's album on which he was a guest performer. If a few more decent references are found he could be notable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood quota

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

Several claims in the article are inadequately supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Assertions about the centrality of the "Blood Quota" to the Shining Path’s ideology are not backed by academic or historical works explicitly addressing this term as a concept. This undermines the credibility of the article.

The tone of the article is biased and excessively negative. For instance, phrases such as "communist militants willfully promoted hatred and violence to attract adherents" reflect an unbalanced perspective. The article fails to present counterpoints or explore broader historical contexts, such as the societal conditions or political dynamics of Peru during the Shining Path’s rise. Much of the article appears to rely on synthesis or interpretation not directly supported by the cited sources. For example, connecting the "Blood Quota" to Gonzalo Thought as a strategic doctrine is speculative and lacks corroborating evidence from established analyses of the Shining Path’s ideology. Volantor (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Volantor (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:WRONGFORUM and procedural close. It sounds like these are WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:POV issues but not WP:Notability issues. This could easily be solved by editing the article to fix content issues through WP:BOLD and/or by dialoguing on the article's talk page using the WP:CONSENSUS process. Failing that, take this to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Either way, no notability or WP:Deletion policy based rationale for deletion has been made by the nominator and this should be closed immediately for procedural reasons. AFD is not the place to work out content disputes.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A very cursory search shows there is ample academic writing on the topic. To quote Jima-González and Paradela-López (Latin American Perspectives 48:6, 194-209, 2021) "The [ 1983 Lucanamarca massacre ] was “justified” by Pensamiento Gonzalo’s idea that “the blood quota” was necessary for the triumph of the revolution" Finding the concept unpalatable is another issue but one should not try to hide or sanewash the darker parts of history just because they make no rational sense. Superboilles (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There are ample sources that demonstrate the notability of the concept from scholarly papers not just routine news coverage. The nomination statement itself did not present strong case against the notability of the concept but focused more on the tone of the content and its perceived biased nature. This is better resolved by presenting a neutral view of events described in the article not through constructive editing. Deletion is not an option. Mekomo (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added WP:Notability issues to the original post with AI, but personally I support a NEUTRALization of the article to meet NPOV.

JD John M. Turner (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a notability opinion here. But you may not modify the text of a signed comment by another editor or the nominator's text. Your contribution was reverted because this is a form of WP:Disruptive editing. I understand you meant it out of a good motivation, but we rely on people not editing other users signed comments or it makes dialoguing reliably no longer possible on any page.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, widely covered in academic studies and a well documented topic in Peruvian communist discussion. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: As others above have pointed out, the subject is significantly covered in reliable academic studies and passes the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadair Records

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

No significant coverage or anything more than trivial mentions. Frost 02:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are primarily about the record label itself. I couldn't find any coverage on the record label. Oddly enough the only news source I found was on a record shop in th UK that has the same name. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not get anyway close to passing notability requirement. Sources in the article have single mentions while some did not even mention it all. This fails WP:GNG and whatever criteria used to create this article. Mekomo (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my source search is coming up dry as well, it appears to be a fairly young company with no significant coverage to speak of. ASUKITE 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Clark (American actor)

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

None of the sources in this article say even close to 100 words about Clark. These are all just passing mentions, i.e. "role name (John Clark)", in works about various films. This is not just a notability issue, but even more fundamentally a verifiability issue, as we have nothing to confirm that this John Clark is the John Clark mentioned in these sources, as opposed to John Clark (English actor) or any number of other people with that very common name. I've tried to find any sources covering this John Clark in depth, and found nothing. This is admittedly hampered by the common-ness of his name, but even including "Western" or "St. Augustine" (his place of death according to this non-RS obituary) is no help. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's not exactly an accurate assessment. While IMDb is not usable here for notability purposes, the filmography on the wiki page does match the IMDb listing for this John Clark, and the English actor has lots of coverage which all verifies his appearance in films. The English actor clearly was not performing in Spaghetti Westerns in the United States based on the sources on the English actor. I really don't think there are mistakes in the filmography on this page. That said, we do need some kind of significant coverage on this person with a career broad scope. I would look for an obituary because that is likely the place to find a career overview. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete. IMDb is, in my experience, pretty reliable as far as credits are concerned (so no confusion with the Brit), and this guy had just minor roles (e.g. "Livery Store Owner") and not too many of even those, so a very clear failure of WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Character actor with not many/no extensive sourcing about the individual. I don't see notability and I can't find anything about him. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fibras Industriales S.A.

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

I am unable to find anything approaching significant coverage for this company, whose article was unsourced since its creation in 2006 until a a dubious source was added a few days ago. PROD was contested. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly selective merge/redirect to fishing net? As a major manufacturer of fishing nets a brief one sentence mention there might be appropriate as an WP:ATD. Otherwise fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Reyes Zobel

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meet WP:BIO fails in WP:GNG. Royiswariii Talk! 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Journalism, and Philippines. Royiswariii Talk! 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his bio at GMA lists a bunch of awards he has won, including a Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (aka Golden Dove Award). That is a significant media award in the Philippines and would meet criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST. If we can find an independent source for that fact, the article should probably be kept.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found a source for the KBP awards yet, but he was inducted into the Eastwood City Walk of Fame this year. I've added that to the article and some other info with sources. Hope that helps. D-Flo27 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still failed in WP:BIO and WP:BLP, doesn't have any sources even still have a recognition on Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (if it's true), It doesn't meet the BLP or just redirect again on Bangon na, Bayan! as what did on first afd. I don't know why need to keep this or create this with a lack of information about a journalist. Royiswariii Talk! 08:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The subject simply does not meet the criteria laid out at WP:NBIO and wp:gng. Here's what I found:
- [40] is mostly an interview so fails wp:independent although it contain some depth.
- [41] is the only valid source that contribute to notability.
- [42] has mentions, doesn't speaks of the subject that much.
- [43] is the user receiving an award that isn't prominent and thus can't meet a criterion listed in WP:NBIO
- [44] is not an independent source.
To sum up, the walk of fame cannot attribute to notability unless shown by valid reliable sources. I am also in favor to deletion if redirection fails. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office

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

Unreferenced, and there is no information here that isn't already present in List of prime ministers of Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The other list is better and has all the same content. We don't need duplicate lists.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prime ministers of Italy (specifically, adapting the table on the new target to be sortable and thus to provide all the navigational value here). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A similar list of prime ministers which appears comprehensive already exists for about a decade before this was created. This List of prime ministers of Italy is detailed enough and this nominated article does not need to be merged with the earlier list. Mekomo (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't think a merge is appropriate as there isn't any new information to merge. Procyon117 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The thing to be merged (unusually) is the sortable table formatting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)~~ Meh, there's no need for a "merge" outcome to have the table in the target reformatted. Withdrawing !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deathstroke (Marvel Comics)

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

The DC Comics version is way more notable than this one. He isn't notable at all, the article has no publication history and only has one section, in which it says he fought and was defeated by Spider-Woman. He only has two sources, one is a list of supervillains, and another a dead link of the comic issue itself. His article is a complete mess. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. The encyclopedia entry by Rovin seems like a descent enough source, but I see no reason we couldn't cover the character in a list.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 4meter4. BOZ (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is quite literally no information that is mergeable here beyond a mention of the character existing, and the character is so obscure (A search yields only two actual appearances in the several decades of Marvel history, with one of them being incredibly minor) that he doesn't even warrant a mention. Not every one-off needs to be accounted for on the character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pokelego999 - Utterly non-notable one-shot character. The character is a complete failure of the WP:GNG and is so completely minor that even including him on a character list would be ascribing more notability to him than actually exists. As stated above, not every single minor comic character that ever existed needs to be included in a character list, and this one is a very good example of one that should not. Rorshacma (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999; existence does not equal notability, enough for a list. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. There are sources that provide WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at best. I would support a redirect per WP:ATD, if editors can agree on a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and the suggestion of @4meter4:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

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

This list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000+ personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and China. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list cannot stay the way it is. The scope given by its title is too broad and doesn't match the far more limited scope of its content. If it did, it would basically duplicate List of generals of China. Either we should move to List of current Chinese military leaders or something similar, or we should merge to List of generals of China. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The similar lists at Category:Lists of active duty military personnel all have a more limited scope than this one. If this list is kept in some form, it should probably be split by rank and/or branch. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sven (Voltron)

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

Unfortunately, as i am a Voltron fan myself, this character fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE found nothing, it only talks about the shows he is from. This is something i didn't want to do, but i have to nominate it. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issues as him.:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for The Rise of Voltron as it is an episode and not a character and does not belong in this bundled nomination. It should be nominated separately. Merge all others to List of Voltron characters per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is an episode, but i still included this because it is Voltron after all. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but it's best to bundle nominations where the outcomes have a shared ending. In general, the bundling process is best avoided when articles are not very close in design. A charcter page is very different then a television episode page.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close WP:NPASR, but make sure that WP:BUNDLE is scrupulously followed per the above. If not, this is more likely than not going to end up as a train wreck. Better to restart clean with separate noms for characters and episode(s) rather than hoping it doesn't go off the rails. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "'No doubt' money-launderer handcuffed at father's funeral had rights breached". Jersey Evening Post. Jersey Evening Post. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[2] "How to donate". Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[3] "About Darius". Through Deserts Blog. Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[4] "Darius Pearce Jersey electoral history". Flow.je. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]