Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9

< November 08 November 10 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Aniqah Choudhri

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline as significant coverage by reliable, independent sources is limited. While Aniqah Choudhri won a notable poetry prize and has some publication credits, the article lacks substantial third-party sources that provide in-depth coverage of her life and career. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Albania

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

Unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a gallery. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For the reasons given. The page exists as a draft. It does not seem to have been submitted to review prior to being published in the mainspace again.
As a sidenote, Albanian road signs are practically identical to Italian signs, save for the use of the Albanian language instead of Italian (as well as other trivial differences). Unless there is more information given about this, an article for it should not exist in my opinion, and it should remain as a draft until then. EthanL13 | talk 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite easy to find RS for this article, just like for the other articles listed in the cat page. If anyone wants to work on and save this article, I can provide the RS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article has 3 RS, and its format and content are in line with the other articles of road signs. Using the second RS, or others that can be found online, one can write a section with more info on the legislation, the relevant insitutions etc. Some media articles elaborate on the issues with their usage in practice and so on. I myself don't have the time for now. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus so we could use a further review of newly added sources to see whether or not they are sufficient to Keep this article. Yes, the article is kind of a gallery but I don't think that reason warrants deletion all on its own.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Not

[edit]
Mike Not (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as unreferenced for the last three years. I am unable to find quality references that provide significant coverage of this artist. There are discogs/myspace/instagram accounts, but the closest to a usable source I found was this interview. Pichpich (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NBAND, WP:MILL, WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:SIGCOV. DJs, music “creators”, and producers are not automatically notable. In fact, we have fairly stringent standards. Producers are run of the mill; their articles are routinely deleted at AfD. Our BLP requirements for at least three sources exists only because we’ve been hoaxed. We have never been a place for original research: when you have zero or one source, it’s original research. It’s 2024, and even if you don’t know all of our rules, everyone knows that we don’t do that. Every article now needs significant coverage. It’s why Wikipedia is better than it’s ever been. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ekaterina Yashina

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. This is a tennis player who has never won a WTA Tour level title or even got close, never reached a Grand Slam tournament main draw and the few citations on the page are merely bog standard stat profiles. There is no significant coverage shown. I did PROD this but apparently that has been done before and challenged hence I'm going this route now. Shrug02 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting WP:NTENNIS is only an indicator that significant coverage is likely to exist. You would still need to prove that WP:SIGCOV exists for the article to meet notability criteria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SlowpokesB (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.*[2] <[3]< [4] I found these resources. User:Vecihi91 12:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I feel like I’m repeating myself in every AfD: the individual who passes WP:NTENNIS is presumed to have had significant coverage, but it’s not proof of that. BLPs almost always require both SIGCOV and a particular rule for their career. If you find proof, please let us know. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calito Soul

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

Reads like WP:PROMO. No real sign of notability here. The concern here is mainly a WP:BLP1E concern which is visible in the lede of the article, which includes "mainly notable for". And I didn't find anything substantial that establishes GNG, and WP:SINGER so I nominate it for deletion.Pitille02 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 Those sources are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources reliable. Pitille02 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all used on the Spanish wikipedia article about him, so can you please explain why they are unreliable, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ Atlantic306 The item does not comply with WP:RS and does not comply with WP:SINGER. Pitille02 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific, what exactly is wrong with the sources ? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Observe the different templates about the sources inserted in the article, in some cases they mention that it is an article with original research/Autoblog. Pitille02 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't explain specifically what is wrong with the three sources your argument is baseless, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 Please read WP:SINGER. Pitille02 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSINGER is the same as WP:NMUSIC and criteria 1 is determined on the coverage in reliable sources so that is why I asked you to explain why those 3 websites are unreliable, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find reliable sources you can provide them. Pitille02 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a detailed analysis of the three sources, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306here, Critica, is that a journalistic medium? here This It is an Autoblog or Blog here and this is a Blog, 507 I cannot corroborate that it is a journalistic website and independent of the artist OR TRIVIAL. I also cannot corroborate that this is visible here. Pitille02 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
, ok , i've changed to a weak keep pending the possibility of better sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306 Apache Ness presents the same problem, the sources are not visible or reliable, this is part of a network of questionable articles without notoriety WP:GNG. Pitille02 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A full evaluation of sources would be useful at this point since there is some disagreement about them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Dclemens1971. They opened a fair number of AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

FNTSY (MJ Mytton-Sanneh)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • MJ Mytton-Sanneh was part of UK boy band New Bounce that placed third in Britain's Got Talent (series 5). Britain's Got Talent averaged 10.9 million viewers per episode on live TV; many lower-placing acts have Wikipedia pages, with Britain's Got Talent being their only source of notability. MJ Mytton-Sanneh has also been part of West End musicals such as Thriller Live (which toured the world) and has also featured on The X Factor. He absolutely is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I acknowledge that in recent years there is not as much notability—but any form of notability is worth a Wikipedia page, as it’s meant to be timeless.
After creating this article, I will also create the article for New Bounce, as they are missing a Wikipedia page SRR111 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: GNG and MUSICIAN is failed here. Most of the (reliable) sources appear trivial or to fall under WP:1E. Also a plethora of... interesting sources, which isn't a deciding factor, but definitely doesn't help. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) Talk 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:1E - I would disagree with this. Thriller Live is an event, as is Britain's Got Talent (series 5), another event, and being part of Speechless (Michael Jackson song). He also was part of X Factor, which I haven't included yet, and in recent years was named BBC Music Introducing Artist of the Month. Certainly not one event, and this is a brief overview.
    As I have previously mentioned, other lower-placing acts that I think actually do fall under WP:1E have Wiki articles, and yet there is no call for deletion—so why is this?
    Additionally, using terms like "a plethora of… interesting sources" when describing my sources quite clearly reads as sarcasm and has no place on Wiki.
    I get the feeling my page has come under scrutiny simply because it’s the first article I have written. Please try to assist me rather than allowing personal opinion to shape the viability of this article. Quite simply, he is notable and has been part of many high-profile 'events.' SRR111 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NSINGER. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSINGER "9. Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition." - he came third, as a member of New Bounce in Britain's Got Talent (series 5). Therefore meets the conditions. Britain's Got Talent (series 5) averaged 10.9 million viewers per episode on live TV and is a major British competition.
    Also meets the condition of section 4 & 12. SRR111 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    == References ==
    The following references support notability under WP:NSINGER section 9:
    • "Britain's Got Talent: MJ speaks to the ES". Express & Star. 2011-06-03. Retrieved 2023-11-09.
    • "Britain's Got Talent: Jai McDowall beats Ronan Parke". BBC News. 2011-06-05. Retrieved 2023-11-09.
    SRR111 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one of the issues here is the way sources are being searched. When using the "find sources" tool on Wiki, the combined search term "FNTSY" with "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" in quotes doesn't yield any results, but this is due to the specificity of the search term rather than a lack of sources. Searching each term separately – "FNTSY" and "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" – brings up significantly more information across reputable sources.
Given that "FNTSY" is his current artist name, while "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" is his known name in previous work and public appearances, perhaps renaming the page to "MJ Mytton-Sanneh" could be a more straightforward solution. However, to clarify, both names are relevant and notable, as he has built a reputation across different phases of his career.
In light of this, I encourage deeper research with variations on his name and aliases before concluding on the page's viability. It may reveal more comprehensive sources and ultimately strengthen the article's standing. SRR111 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep argument that is being presented so I think a little more discussion time would be useful and an evaluation of newly found sources as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uvolit Zhoru

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

The correspondence between WP:MOVIE is not shown and is extremely doubtful.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Kézako

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

Almost completely unsourced, heavily POV article. BEFORE showed no reviews or news. From what I can find, subject does not meet GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we see a few more opinions and arguments here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dabil (1517)

[edit]
Battle of Dabil (1517) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kerh (1516) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510). Doesn't seem notable, poorly formatted and unverifiable citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanni Hurtado

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

Had a brief pro career but I'm not seeing enough coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I could find was Medio Tiempo, which mentions him once in the main text and once in the squad list. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Escalante

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

Despite 164 mins of professional football, I can find no evidence of a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC. In fact, I can only find database sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besian Çeliku

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. My own searches yield only database sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable snooker player. Doesn't meet GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me on why this is a 'speedy keep'. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which has nothing to do with WP:GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even come close to being notable. He's never even been in the top 128 players of snooker in the world. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed auditory feedback

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

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Travis

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Raffa

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

The subject might not meet WP:SIGCOV. I see some sources about her, but it might be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. Many of the sources are from her university or employer. TJMSmith (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Keep arguments will have to supply evidence of notability (not just claims) in the form of reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffino's Bakery of New Orleans

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

Apparent memorial page for a defunct non notable local business, created by an SPA who appears to have a conflict of interest. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 9 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.

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments should focus on policy-based reasons and the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Banker, can you be more specific as to which sources help establish GNG? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: The subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE who is the appointed head of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs and to whom India's second highest category security was granted by the Indian government (The Economic Times, Times Now). He has also received other coverage over the years. See: The Quint, The Quint, NDTV, ABP LIVE, Business Standard — Mister Banker (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not usable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Have you even read what NEWSORGINDIA says? You need to show how this coverage falls under it. Simply saying it does, just doesn't cut it. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Mister Banker. Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first two sources only talk about granting Z security to him[9][10] and his refusal, they do not provide any other information about him. The rest of the coverage you are talking about is only due to his controversial statements over the years[11][12], this too is only about the statement he made , this source is only reporting his statement on his wife's arrest at the airport without providing any additional coverage about him, none of these sources have in-depth or significant coverage of his life beyond rudimentary attention to his controversial statements. My rationale still stands, he is only getting occasional news worthy coverage only due to his statements not because he is independently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, you have agreed that WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't apply here and that he is notable enough that the media seems it worthy to provide coverage to his statements which can be added to the article to let the readers know about his stance on socio-political matters. — Mister Banker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. This has only ever been a redirect; those are discussed at RfD. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England Lionhearts

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

Can't find sufficient references to make this a page, but it is obvious that this is not the England national team. Either a more appropriate redirect is needed or the page has to be deleted as the current redirect is very misleading. Mn1548 (talk) 18:50, 9 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.

Adam Arnold

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

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect – The deletion argument doesn't hold water, but looking through the sources used in the article, I cannot find a single secondary source that says anything about Arnold except listing him as the writer. Nothing in my books eiither. I can't even find out where he's from or what his inspirations are based on these sources, there's not even an interview. Using exclusively primary sources for biographical information is a problem. Aoi House seems to be the primary topic here, with Vampire Cheerleaders also having only one review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect – Per Maplestrip/Mable's suggestion above, redirecting to the Aoi House page as it is the author's primary series seems like it would make the most sense.
Gomanga1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

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

All three sources in the article are passing mentions in relation to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael of Orléans-Braganza. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Team (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Strike SockPuppet vote DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 My bad! I did not leave any space between the link and the next sentence. It should work now. Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be just a blurb about it upcoming, nothing substantial. But if others think it is enough for notability I won't dispute. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can add https://www.wired.com/2007/12/hackers-on-cour/ mentions in https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/tiger-team-member-attacks-developers-not-apps https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/court-tv-getting-makeover-in-08-idUSN14211084/ (repeated here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/court-tv-plans-rebrand-2008-131955/ also in Variety) ; significant mention in Disguise (see excerpt here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/unauthorized-personnel). Fwiw, the short series is listed on the page about Court TV (a natural redirect if this is all judged insufficient). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)@Donaldd23[reply]

Arshin Mehta

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

Previously deleted and salted. Sources:

  1. IMDB. Really?
  2. Interview hence not independent
  3. What makes this a reliable and independent source? I'm not seeing evidence of either.
  4. A collection of advertisements is not a reliable source.
  5. Another interview
  6. IMBb again
  7. Sole mention of the subject is "The movie stars Arshin Mehta."
  8. Sole mention of the subject is one sentence and a cast list.
  9. Sole mention of the subject is one sentence attributed to her and her presence in a list.
  10. Not significant coverage for various reasons.
  11. Another interview
  12. No mention of the subject other than in the title.

So the sourcing just isn't there. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom, the sources don't come even close to satisfying WP:GNG, and BEFORE finds nothing better. There is also nothing to suggest this person would meet WP:NACTOR, either. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsurpring it's Pppery again nominating an article I worked on just yesterday as it invoked this category I'm currently patrolling alongside autopatrollers, Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace, foe deletion. I then sent it to RMTR because of the Arshin Mehta (Actress) title which I ain't surprised due to seeing that it was salted (due to 3 creations and 3 admin deletions within November and December 2017) and it was posed as though I'm part of a hidden scheme just to have an article here with this title whatever it takes when in fact it isn't. Good luck anyone reviving this though! Intrisit (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very minor actress with no significant and notable roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sources are mostly unreliable and one that is not secondary independent and some others poor with no significant coverage on the subject but just passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayraktepe Dam

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

Seems to be doubt about whether this will actually be built https://www.silifkegazetesi.net/2024/10/03/devletin-bosa-giden-milyonlari-ve-yatirimlari-ne-olacak/

At the moment I don’t think it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartley (British writer)

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

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Thomson

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

Radio presenter article. Subject has done typical radio presenter things - presented shows on various stations, but not enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage found on a search to satisfy WP:GNG. Article has been in this poor state since 2007(!). Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

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

The article has 13 references, but the issue with them is that many of them aren't reliable sources and/or don't provide significant coverage. I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions, like less than 30 words about a Milan release in an issue of Cash Box ([13], page 26, bottom right corner). toweli (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Civil

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

Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksu Dam

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

I cannot find enough recent sources to show it notable. There are other rivers with the same name. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikalp Singh

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

I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV sources and am unsure how this page was kept. I asked the reviewer for clarification but received no response, so I am taking it to AfD. The sources are poor, providing only passing mentions, and I found no significant coverage after further searches. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. as User:BusterD has withdrawn their deletion nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Women's United States Championship

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

This is a new article about an upcoming, unscheduled event just announced last night (no cite for the announcement). There's inadequate sourcing to support this article, and it's entirely WP:TOOSOON for article creation, based on my reasonable BEFORE. It's already the target of ip speculators and page protection has been requested. I'd be okay with draftification. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Per same reason other editors have stated. It is an actual professional wrestling championship that was just unveiled last night (not an event as the nominator incorrectly claimed). And yes, there was a citation for the announcement (unless it had gotten removed when you requested this AfD and has since been readded). It's a Start level article, which means it will be expanded. This AfD was TOOSOON. --JDC808 ♫ 20:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - per above. kpgamingz (rant me) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing nomination. I can see my BEFORE this morning looks quite different this afternoon. Appreciate being told when I'm incorrect. Sorry for dragging you folks here. 23:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
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.

Rahul Gupta (film director)

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

A director whose films are not notable, thus failing to meet the WP:NDIRECTOR criterion, and the sources are likely NEWSORGINDIA. For example, this Mid-Day article is a sponsored piece, as it appears under the 'brand-media' section and is published by BrandMedia. Other sources are ANI press releases, which are neither independent nor WP:SIGCOV and may also be sponsored. Consequently, the subject currently fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohadevpur Sarba Mongala (Pilot) High School

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

Tagged for notability by Abishe shortly after it was created. The creator removed the tag and continued to expand it, but never added a source. The external link is to an indiscriminate self-published website that does not help establish notability. My own searches didn't find sources to satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. Could potentially redirect to Mohadevpur Upazila, where it is mentioned in a list of 26 secondary schools. Worldbruce (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mohadevpur Upazila#Secondary schools. Procyon117 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franciszek Błażyca

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

Being a victim of the Katyn massacre is not enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges-Claude_Guilbert

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

does not fit criteria for academic relevance and possibility of self promotion Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Kim Chung

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

The article is about the chairperson of a non-notable company. It was previously soft-deleted but later recreated by a single-purpose account. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom)

[edit]
List of senior members of the Privy Council (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlike the Father of the House, there is no such designation as a senior privy counsellor, or a senior member of the Privy Council, as denied by the Lord President in 2009. This article appears to be a list of longest serving privy counsellors, so I would not say the content is utterly original research (it can be verified with a list of all privy counsellors), but there is still no good reason to create such a list. The article is linked from succession boxes of articles contained in the list, of which I would say we should remove those as well. ネイ (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saoud Al-Nuaimi

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

Had only a very brief career and no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Best that I can find in Arabic is FilGoal, which is just a database source. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Awaji

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

Deleted before. No indication of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Created by notorious sockpuppet user and block evader. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Walker (Brothers & Sisters)

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

Article has been tagged as uncited since 2013. The entire article contains WP:JUSTPLOT. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Tennis player who has never won a main draw title, never played in a Grand Slam tournament main draw, never been ranked in the top 250 in the world and no significant coverage of her is included in the sparse references. Shrug02 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Etefa

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

I tried draftifying the article, but it was moved back. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but it failed. The sources in the article aren't quite formatted correctly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct there is no problem with the citation or reference keep it up Pit09 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altani

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

In a previous AfD, a clear consensus emerged that this biography did not meet WP:BIO1E, and it was merged to Tolui.

The author of the recreated article claims that this woman is identical to another woman of a similar name. This is pure original research. They claim that this source "confirms Eltina or Aylt'ana was Altani", when in reality it does no such thing: is a chapter about transliterations of names.

I suggest that the original merge be restored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francise confirmed they were one and same person Ortaq (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortaq: Could you perhaps quote the relevant part of the source? Or indicate the page number(s)? TompaDompa (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, Ortaq is free to correct me, but I believe they mean pages 410–411. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured, but I don't see how it supports their position. The source states (if you'll excuse my poor attempts at representing the characters used in the text correctly) that Grigor calls the wife of Čormaqan "Ayltʻana Xatʻun," but Kirakos calls her "Eltina Xatʻun" (Tiflis edition, p. 269, 1. 6 from the bottom). and In the Secret History (§ 214) the name of the wife of Boro𝛾ul appears seven times (YCPS 9.13b2 and 4; 14a5; 14b3; 15a2 and 4; 16a1). Each time it is transcribed [...] Al ta ni (= Altani).. It's all a bit technical of course, but this does not look to me like stating that the two are the same person—even if the source may be saying that these are two variations (or just transcriptions?) of the same name? TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, hence their argument is entirely flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Well, I don't have any particular opinions on the merits of having a stand-alone article in this specific case beside that, but on the assumption that the last AfD got it right and given that nothing obvious has changed since (unless there's something I'm missing, the only thing that was new was the assertion that these two people were one and the same?), I suppose the "merge" outcome should stand—and since the content was presumably already merged that would amount to a (reinstate) redirect from me. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, the nominator is asking for an original Merge to be restored (although I'm not sure how this is done). What do you think of that outcome? Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine I suppose, would at least preserve some of it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so
All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510)

[edit]
Battle of Qara-Hamid (1510) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail to see how this is notable. The only two remaining citations are poorly cited (and not verifiable) and seem to be based on translation of a primary source? This was moved to draft twice because of its poor quality [16] [17] but then quickly moved back with no explanation by two brand new users [18] [19], one of them being the creator of this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t the source referred to. The pdf you linked to doesn’t have pages 500 or 501 as in the reference, and in any case doesn’t mention Qara Hamid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)

Mangilal Arya

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

I searced web and I didn’t find any single source for this article, fails WP:GNG. This article is also tagged since 2012 but not yet nominated. I m surprised how did this page survived a long. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebohon of Ova

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was declined at Afc but finds it's way back to the main space. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:43, 2 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! 10:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling City Choir

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

A purely PROMOTIONal piece for a community group that has gained no INDEPENDENT coverage in the past 167 years. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:33, 2 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! 10:48, 9 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.

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 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! 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riyasat Parjamandal

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this topic meets WP:NORG. Redirection would have been a good ATD, but the only article that mentions this party is Ghagga, a town, which seems inappropriate as a target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrish Tyagi

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

Being related to a notable person does not establish notability on Wikipedia. The subject clearly fails to meet both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:
- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).
- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.[2][3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".[6] David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
  2. ^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
  3. ^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
  4. ^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
  5. ^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
  6. ^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

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

This clearly fails WP:NPOL, as the subject has not won any elections to prominent positions like MP, MLA, or MLC. Additionally, it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Holding a position as Chief National Spokesperson of a party does not satisfy Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability. Baqi:) (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zuck28 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youn Young-seong

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 7 minutes in the K-League and 215 minutes in the J2 league. The Japanese Wikipedia has mostly primary sources, though it has the one sports.khan.co.kr article, which looks like fluff to me. It has words like "grow rapidly" and "absorbing the detailed and fast-paced soccer unique to South America like a sponge" when the reality is he never played a single competitive match in South America. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Mohamed (footballer, born 2002)

[edit]
Abdulrahman Mohamed (footballer, born 2002) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 14 matches in the Qatari league. Article looks very similar to those created by sockpuppet abuser Mhsohaib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Davies (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Saukkonen

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosnett

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Mourad

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2013. I do not believe he meets WP:JOURNALIST. Article contains a number of uncited claims that I was not able to verify. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dipluridae species

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

This is effectively a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that duplicates information in Dipluridae and its various genus pages. Keeping it doubles the amount of work to keep the wiki up to date, and doesn't add anything. There is a list of genera in Dipluridae, and a list of species within each genus (e.g. Linothele). The lists are not so long as to unbalance the articles and justify having their own page. Each genus in Dipluridae has its own article, so there's no longer a case to list species by family due to an absence of genus articles, as I understand was the rationale for this system. There is some precedence for deleting this based on the List of Salticidae Species deletion. Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support In the early days of creating spider articles, there may have been a rationale for having lists of species by family, rather than including them in genus articles, but this is no longer the case. As the nominator rightly says, listing species by family and then again by genus creates redundancy, adds nothing, and makes maintenance more difficult, frequently leading to inconsistencies. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Such list articles make updating the taxonomy more difficult and sometimes they get overlooked leading to inconsistencies. The list are useful when there there are few genus articles and the list unbalances the family article, but this isn't the case here. A list might be suitable if it includes other information (habitat, conservation, web type, etc) but again that's not the case here. When here are large numbers of species, lists at the genus level seems more appropriate.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The family article has a linked list of recent genera, each of which has a species list; and for the fossil genera (where we don't have separate genus articles) it does list the species, which are few. This article adds nothing beyond these components, and thus seems surplus to requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

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

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Richardson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 9 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 keep‎. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ottawa stabbing

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

The subject of the article is a minor crime incident which falls under WP:BREAKING and WP:ROUTINE coverage. It also fails WP:LASTING impact. — Mister Banker (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage here is absolutely not WP:ROUTINE. Please read the examples at WP:ROUTINE for comparison. Breaking is a concern, as is depth and duration of coverage. There's not enough here to build an article that isn't bad which is my biggest concern.
This did get several months of coverage so not all the sources are breaking, but IDK if it's enough. It was created too early to see if it will turn out notable, but if it turns out notable I would support recreating it in the future. Familicides tend to be the least likely kind of mass attack to receive NEVENT qualifying coverage so that is a strike against it. Merge into List of mass stabbing incidents (2020–present), probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:11, 9 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.

Nate Douglas

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

WP:BLP of an unelected candidate, not adequately demonstrated as passing the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is effectively just the usual campaign brochure referenced to the usual smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every district can always show, which is not enough to render his unsuccessful election campaign more notable than other unsuccessful election campaigns all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Republican Party

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbolabo Awelewa

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

Non-notable cyber security person whose notability is anchored on his scant analysis of cyber security reports written by different groups and organizations. All are passing mentions in routine media coverage Ednabrenze (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.- Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Phish Volume 17

[edit]
Live Phish Volume 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating the last four numbered Live Phish volumes (17, 18, 19, 20) and Live Phish 07.29.03 as they all appear to fail WP:NALBUMS due to lack of news sources talking about them, charting, or anything significant. 16 and earlier at least all charted on the Billboard 200 and received AllMusic reviews, but I haven't looked through them in detail. I came across these after noticing the article for 19 was recently recreated, with its only source being a piece on the Young Folks website about the Live Phish series written by a Phish fan/journalist, so thought it best to seek consensus on the similar articles' deletion. There just isn't any substantial coverage of these four volumes out there. The additional volumes are:

Live Phish Volume 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live Phish Volume 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live Phish Volume 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live Phish 07.29.03 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ss112 02:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[24]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster of Monsters

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

Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest

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

This event lacks in-depth, independent and significant coverage as confirmed by a search on Google News. Also, the award is given primarily for promotional purposes by entities involved in marketing which is one of the exclusionary criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals). Charlie (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how a national contest could not be notable. It also sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International, Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003, Miss Tourism International. Also Covered in high-profile Indian media which added, kindly check. Jitujadab90 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any in-depth, independent and significant coverage on Google News. Could you kindly provide a detailed source analysis to support your vote to keep? Charlie (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game terminology)

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

Appears to be pure WP:DICDEF, WP:SYNTH or original research. There is no significant coverage about the use of the term "melee" in games that passes notability standards, it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This term is more adequately defined at Wiktionary's definition: [34]. This is just a dictionary definition with no significant coverage discussing why this terminology is important beyond just being a word in the gamer lexicon. All above arguments for keeping have assumed coverage exists, so unless sourcing turns up, I'm siding with the nom, who seems to have done a well-researched BEFORE. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

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

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:
1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him
2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988
3. Doesn’t mention him
4. Passing mention in a brief listing
5. Passing mention
6. Doesn’t mention him
7. Doesn’t mention him
8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)
9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source
10. No longer accessible but looks decent.
That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest fathers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of oldest fathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Pregnancy over age 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS, and persistent WP:BLP violation, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Absolutiva (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also WP:NLIST. Procyon117 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 20:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regard to the "non-notable people with references" comments. The notability of the refs is helpful: Time magazine, Guinness World Records, The Times of Israel, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, CBS News, Associated Press, etc. etc. These are good sources, and verifies the notabilities. — Maile (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: Some list of people does not meet notability requirements for pregnancy over age 50. Also, Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability per consensus. Absolutiva (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mee Massa (TV series)

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

Another draft that was moved back into mainspace. It's not very well sourced, and a Google search turns up little to nothing (YouTube videos, etc.). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şifa University

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

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
    • University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)
    • etc.
    What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kazankova

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

WP:NACTOR significance is not shown.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple sources cited in the prior two replies. Not sure why this was relisted rather than just closed as keep. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:41, 9 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.

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radda Novikova

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

Russian film director. The importance of a serial (mostly) director is extremely questionable. The Russian Wikipedia article was deleted [36].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be kept because the director in question has a significant body of work, having directed multiple popular television sitcoms in Russia, a major media market. Furthermore, she has received international recognition, with awards that affirm her notability beyond national boundaries. There are plenty of references from major outlets, including Cosmopolitan and RIA Novosti. The fact that the Russian Wikipedia chose to delete the article does not diminish her achievements, as Wikipedia in different languages may have unique standards or biases—this is the English Wikipedia, which evaluates notability from an international perspective and should base its decision on the director's clear contributions to the industry and documented impact, not on the editorial decisions of other Wikipedias. It is also unfortunate to delete a page about a notable female director, as representation in media coverage is essential to recognizing the contributions of women in film and television, especially in an industry where they are historically underrepresented. Er nesto (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna alPolitico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our sources do not have to be in English. They do, however, have to be substantive, meaning that they have to contain detailed coverage and analysis about him doing something noteworthy, and it isn't enough that sources can be found which just happen to have his name in them. For instance, an article "about" public opinion polling on his popularity or unpopularity does not support notability, and a very short blurb about him commenting on something that happened to somebody else does not support notability. He has to be the subject (not the speaker) of a reasonably long and detailed (not a short blurb) piece of coverage and analysis about him (not just featuring him giving a soundbite comment about somebody else) before that source starts to support notability, and even then there have to be several sources of that high calibre (not just one) before he's cleared the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 9 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 Withdrawn‎. per nominator request  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Klaffner

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

Does not meet notability or significant coverage criterias. Shrug02 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thales, Indiana

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

Again with the citation saying, "this is not a settlement": in this case the 1910 county history says it was a post office, and judging from the "house in the middle of nowhere" site, I see no reason to disagree. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NPLACE which says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Per WP:NPLACE and WP:GNIS the GNIS reference doesn't count as legal recognition and as it's unincorporated I don't think there's any other recognition (open to being corrected here by someone more familiar with the US). Thus it falls back onto WP:GNG and I can't find anything to meet that - all references have passing references of this place, mainly being about Dubious Country, thus not meeting WP:SIGCOV MolecularPilot 07:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding that I couldn't find anything much beyond the references in my own search! :) MolecularPilot 07:01, 9 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.

Pocket FM (platform)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source Assessment Table

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/pocket-fm-funding-audio-series-1235947135/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on funding ? Unknown
https://restofworld.org/2024/elevenlabs-pocket-fm/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/lightspeed-finalizing-leading-80m-plus-funding-in-pocket-fm/ Yes No Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH Trivial coverage on funding ✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/pocket-fm-to-start-ip-licensing-of-its-content/article65523336.ece Yes Yes Trivial coverage on service offerings ? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-pocket-fmaudio-streaming-service-storytelling-that-powers-binge-listening-2690554/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on service offerings ? Unknown
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pocket-fm-to-invest-40-mn-to-expand-online-reading-library-11708408857053.html Yes Yes Trivial coverage on funding ? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-pocket-fms-india-arm-registers-647-revenue-growth-losses-contracts-by-56-in-fy-2023-3355318/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on the amount of revenue ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do editors agree with the source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the source asssessment. Not every TechCrunch article is significant coverage but this one is. Combined with Variety this looks like a keep. And just as an additional point of reference $160MM in revenue is a lot, this is not a random just-launched startup that happened to get trade mentions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments about TechCrunch's reliability and revenue volume suggest a lack of understanding of the source assessment table provided above and the guidelines on trivial coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]