Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14

< October 13 October 15 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was snow keep‎. (non-admin closure) Launchballer 17:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]
Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (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)

While the outcome of this case may be significant, this article currently feels like WP:NOTNEWS given that this an ongoing court case. I think the case being covered at Asian News International and Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation is enough without warranting a whole article on the case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 14 October 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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Kalyan

[edit]
Sagar Kalyan (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 more than six months ago so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Deutschland

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

I could not find additional references, sole reference does not seem to be about the song specifically, request for additional references is over a decade old Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:05, 14 October 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! 04:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkeo Corner, Indiana

[edit]
Tarkeo Corner, 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)

Only evidence found was for the post office; otherwise, a "no there there" spot. Mangoe (talk) 22:51, 7 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! 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't read WP:GNIS, you need to do so now as it explains why, in these discussions, we haven't taken mere appearance of a name on a map or listing in GNIS as authorative. It's common even then to find place names which are just post offices, either in railroad stations or even in peoples' houses, from the days before RFD when people had to come in to collect their mail. That appears to be the case here, and we have not as a rule kept these without other documentation. Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Braudy (art dealer)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Leo Braudy (art dealer) (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 are all connected to the subject or are not significant coverage – fails GNG. The previous AFD mentioned some offline sources, but they are not accessible for verification and the descriptions of these do not seem substantive (e.g. among brief quotes from art dealers, not biographical coverage). He is now appearing on a reality show but this would not be a basis for notability (though this could be redirected there should an article for the season be created). Reywas92Talk 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he was already discussed in a deletion discussion a couple years ago and the result was keep. It looks like he recently participated in the Netflix reality dating show "Love is Blind" (Season 7). It looks like a pretty big show and I see a number of articles written recently about him and his business from the show (it looks like he had a pretty negative image on the show). Seems to me like it would be an odd time to delete this page since there are now more sources than ever on him. And probably more coming out since this all seems to be unfolding in real time. Maybe a better approach is to add sources about his Love is Blind stint. And maybe update his title to "Art Dealer & Reality Show Contestant" if possible. All of this seems to be unfolding in real time so my opinion is to wait a bit and see if any additional coverage comes out in the coming months. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reality show participants are rarely notable. Routine coverage of episodes and the contestants do not establish notability, even though there is plenty of tabloid media about them. Not a single other Love is Blind participant has an article, even as all of them also have "more sources than ever". Love Is Blind season 7 is a good redirect target assuming the page is made. There should be substantive coverage unconnected to this appearance to justify keeping this. Reywas92Talk 13:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Leo was generally accepted as notable before his reality show stint, I'm just saying if he was accepted as notable before, it might be prudent to wait a bit and see if any other articles come out about him considering the reality show stint. It would be one thing if this page were created after Love is Blind Season 7 came out, but it's been on Wikipedia for a few years prior. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with this. In my opinion it seems prudent to wait a bit. The Love is Blind stint is not a basis for notability, but is worth adding to his page, which I see has been updated to reflect this. BigFish3387 (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not notable enough to warrant an article only references of him online are personal websites/company owned websites. Just to note; the two other replies are from accounts that originally wrote the article about him (The accounts are probably Leo Braudy) Eric89SPIN (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Leo Braudy. I'm an Armenian American and former art history grad student who contributed to the Stephen Sacklarian article, who is a well known painter. It’s worth noting that Stephen Sacklarian’s estate is managed by "Zach" Braudy, who now seems to go by Leo, as mentioned in the Armenian Weekly.
The current deletion discussion seems to have been prompted by recent media attention related to his appearance on Love is Blind. I understand the current lack of sources, but given the unusual and evolving nature of the situation (the show is still being released), it seems reasonable to wait for potential upcoming sources, such as interviews or art publications, that may emerge following the show's final episode on October 30th.
Should no relevant material surface, I would then support the nomination for deletion. However, it seems premature to make a decision now while new information may be forthcoming. Would it not make sense to wait a few weeks and see what shakes out? 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that reality show contestant is not a basis for notability, but there may be an interview or article about Leo's art dealings that comes out because of his reality show stint, is what I'm trying to say. Or maybe something that discredits him. I don't know. But I don't see why we should rush to a conclusion when this "news story" about him is unfolding in real time. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we almost always delete stubs about participants who don’t win or place in an unscripted “reality” show. There’s lots of precedent - some of which I created back in the late 2000s-early 2010s, and saw my work deleted. Consensus can change, but this one developed over many AfDs. Unless you can show clearly some significant coverage, this, too, must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Not sure it was a strong !keep last time, but since the TV show, there's more coverage. [2] and [3] are about this person and cover his job. With the others given in the article, should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine reality show tabloid coverage generally doesn't count toward notability, I can find articles/interviews about many contestants. Reywas92Talk 01:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: The sourcing is all primary/self published promotional material or a single mention in an article about a reality TV show which he was a contestant on (nothing more than a photo, age, and profession...not even a full name). None of the sources in the article are even close to establishing notability through WP:GNG or WP:BIO (primary self published sources and the single Variety article that mentions him in passing) and it does not meet the sourcing requirements for WP:BLP. nf utvol (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a number of news articles written about Leo Braudy following the reality show, including two from Business Insider. If Business Insider is writing articles about him, it is possible that more in depth articles could be published which may shed more light and establish more notability. As I mentioned above, it seems sensible to wait a bit as articles seem to be coming out in real time. BigFish3387 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypotheticals that "it is possible" is not a basis for keeping an article. That is not policy-based, and it can be recreated if that actually happens. Insider also writes about reality TV, but that does not generally contribute to biographical notability – any expected coverage will be about his Netflix romance show appearance along with his fellow participants. Reywas92Talk 13:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles Oaktree b cites are tabloidy articles discussing him in the context of his appearance a brand new season of a reality TV show. As a result, we have no evidence yet of WP:SUSTAINED notability. (It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.) Even if more coverage is generated in the coming months, it may still be a WP:BLP1E situation since there are no WP:GNG-qualifying sources otherwise. They're all WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and a couple niche WP:TRADES publications. I don't see a valid redirect target since there's not even a page for this season of the show he's on. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also I want to note that there seems to be WP:SPA at play in this RfC. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast and BigFish3387 have considerable edit overlaps and their activity all seems to revolve around Leo Braudy. These two users also contributed to the last vote to keep that is being referenced.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a clear consensus to Keep this article, not just because of BISHOPS because of the sources added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 09:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Millanguir

[edit]
Joel Millanguir (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 BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; Christianity Today has only a passing mention with highlighting the person's notability; Youtube is actually very bad source for citing. Nor more sources are provided. WP BEFORE was applied but I cannot add something reliable here. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP BISHOPS is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every bishop covered by BISHOPS has been kept at AfD as far back as you can go. It’s not just a common outcome, it’s a near-universal outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAPOLICY somewhat applies. If the topical AfD regulars like those here think it's a good enough reason, it's a non-guideline guideline. Again, the assertion isn't that a bishop is notable without coverage, but that the coverage of a bishop may be hard enough to find that it's difficult to prove its presence or absence... but we still know it's almost certainly there somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person has little or no significant coverage, boasting only a YouTube link and a passing mention in Christianity Today. As this page is about a living person, it must follow WP ANYBIO, and I cannot find anything that would support keeping it. Maybe a redirect to the local church could solve the issue this time. Anglican sources are not independent, and I cannot find them, as Google News doesn’t treat them as reliable (nor does Wikipedia). --Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always kept diocesan bishops of major denominations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no basis in policy or guidelines for the arguments that bishops are automatically notable. WP:BISHOPS, as an essay, does not represent community consensus. While bishops are often notable, this one does not seem to be, given the lack of third-party reliable sources covering him. Sandstein 16:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite being in the minority numbers-wise, the delete argument advanced by Sandstein is the most persuasive below at this point. Relisting to see if consensus can become clearer with an extra 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Perego

[edit]
Andrea Perego (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:GNG. Usually I would try harder to search for Italian-language sources in my WP:BEFORE search, but indications are strong that the subject isn't notable. He doesn't have an identifier in VIAF. His most-reviewed book on GoodReads has 7 ratings. Despite being described as a journalist, he doesn't seem to have any articles in MuckRack (The ones found seem to belong to the energy engineer). There's a 2019 interview in a non-notable blog. Daask (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Bo

[edit]
Ni Bo (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 rather sizeable, but written from primary sources and with overblown claims.

  • First regarding the sources: not a single one is significant and independent. They are all primary sources, including a press release from Wuhan Zall; passing mentions, stats or 404s.
  • The article lists numerous trophies he won with Guangzhou Evergrande in 2011, 2012, 2013. He did not play a single league game during those years, and no games in the Chinese Super League. Only 2 cup games for Evergrande, as well as four substitutions in the second tier. It might be the case that China awards trophies to people who didn't participate for a single minute in those competitions (some other countries don't), but I don't think that's something he he inherits notability from.
  • He did have brief spells with two clubs in China's second tier (unfortunately we don't have the no. of minutes) and played 614 minutes in Hong Kong, neither of which are strong claims to notability. He did not play a single league game for Wuhan Zall either. What events would have generated coverage then?

If presented one or two independent sources with significant coverage I might change my mind. Otherwise, I don't think this is strong enough. Geschichte (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Corvi (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. A consensus to delete this article is clearly not going to form between now and the election, whatever precedent and policy may have to say about how we ought to handle it. asilvering (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Osborn

[edit]
Dan Osborn (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)

Though well-sourced to WP:RS, this entire BLP hits both WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE. Thirty-three (33) of the 34 article citations relate to, or originate directly due to, the BLP's political candidacy. My WP:BEFORE is unable to discover unrelated coverage.
In cases like this we have, historically, followed the guidance of WP:POLOUTCOMES: "[candidates] ... are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls"

  • ROUTINE: Campaign coverage for a candidate for public office is, by definition and through the way we usually apply this in similar cases, ROUTINE and where an article is formed exclusively with ROUTINE coverage, it fails WP:N. In cases of political candidates with BLPs, we always require WP:SIGCOV to be demonstrated through non-campaign related coverage or by application of WP:SNG
  • BLP1E: We must also address the question: "If this person loses his election, will he still meet our WP:N threshold?" With the only sources about him campaign related, he clearly also fails the BLP1E threshold.

Because this is an otherwise well-formed article, it may also be worth considering Draftiying it for a month (if he wins his election he would obviously meet the SNG criteria), but I'll leave it to someone else to suggest that if they feel this BLP is a redeemable case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC); edited 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy KEEP Osborn gained national reputation as union leader; a better BEFORE would have revealed that, and a better count of the references would have revealed that it's not 33 of 34 about Senate run, as claimed. His candidacy is anything but routine, so not BLP1E. Coverage of his candidacy is anything but routine, extensive significant IN DEPTH in NATIONAL/INTL press (as noted in nomination). Djflem (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"His candidacy is anything but routine" That's not what WP:ROUTINE means. Chetsford (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COVERAGE of the candidacy is anything but routine (just as candidacy is anything s anything but routine) It is INDEPTH and SIGNIFICANT in NYTimes, Guardian, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, USA Today, The Nation, Washington Post plus more, but a REF BOMB isn't needed here.Djflem (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, yeah, that's not what ROUTINE means here. We generally use it to mean coverage that would be customary and expected. All political candidates are the subject of coverage related to their candidacy. We routinely delete these articles if they haven't received any other coverage other than coverage arising out of their candidacy. See WP:POLOUTCOMES for an explanation, and examples, of this. Chetsford (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not routine campaign coverage: it is not customary, it is exceptional, if not extraordinary. Djflem (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Nebraska. Candidates rarely meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage is routine campaign coverage. The sources around the strike might be something, but I'm not seeing it as in-depth about Osborn himself to meet GNG. If he wins in November we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Union leader could be notable, but I'm not showing much coverage about him during the strike, mostly about the strike itself. Running for office and being in the navy aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Svitek, Patrick (October 4, 2024). "In Nebraska, independent Senate candidate gives GOP a competitive race". The Washington Post. Osborn gained national prominence after he led the 2021 strike as president of the local Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. Djflem (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaplan, Juliana (November 7, 2021). "Meet the 18-year Kellogg's veteran who's leading workers in a month-long strike that's still going: 'What's at stake here is the American middle class'". Business Insider. Retrieved February 18, 2024. Djflem (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While great to fill in biographical details this, again, is coverage directly arising out of the candidacy. Our longstanding precedent is to accept as N unelected candidates only if they have SIGCOV unrelated to the candidacy. Chetsford (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford I'm not really sure that's accurate. There's all sorts of exceptions that are imaginable (eg unelected politican who is the sole candidate in a seat or an unelected candidate subject to assassination). Notability is whether or not they satisfy the GNG - trying to make non-elected status an exclusionary measure will only turn up an inevitable list of exceptions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm not really sure that's accurate." I am sure that's accurate. While the hypothetical scenarios you explained are interesting they are, in fact, hypotheticals. I'm not arguing as to whether our precedent is right or wrong, merely that we have -- across multiple articles -- long considered campaign coverage ROUTINE. And that's simply a fact. It's not about whether a candidate is unelected or elected, the question is whether or not their only SIGCOV is in campaign-related media. Many unelected candidates do have articles because they have been covered independent of coverage that would have existed if not for the campaign. That simply does not apply here. It's fine for people to make an WP:IAR argument but that's the only argument being made. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that removing a page of neutral, non-propagandistic information about an American election while that American election is happening would be a disservice to the world. Yeah, call this an IAR !vote if you'd like, but I think the way we handle political candidates is more than a bit silly in general, and in this particular case — a non-Republican seen as having a shot in Nebraska — even more so. It's not a routine campaign, in the vernacular sense of the word, and stretching the Wikipedian jargon of WP:ROUTINE to dismiss all coverage of a candidacy is cutting off our nose to spite our face. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. We can revisit this after 2024 US elections are over. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you clarify the policy basis of your !vote? I may not be familiar with a policy that allows us to retain not notable BLPs in mainspace if there's an election scheduled in the USA. Does this policy apply just to USA elections or are there other countries it applies to, as well? Chetsford (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but I see some potential in this subject and cannot reject the possibility that it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon. That's why I said we should wait. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but" There's not really a "but" if you accept this as a case of unexceptional BLP1E. BLP1E is a policy. "it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon" I see. Can you clarify the policy that allows us to uniquely keep this non-notable article in mainspace instead of Draftifying it like we do all other articles that might meet GNG in the future, but don't currently? Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC); edited 08:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see this suggestion as a practical one - in the last few weeks before a US general election, it is quite difficult to delete a candidate for statewide office - see the discussion of WP:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield (ultimately kept). Passions are high in the run up to an election and (as long as the information is verifiable), we can more properly adjudicate whether a stand-alone article is warranted for an individual who is involved in a single-event (because some candidates for public office were not notable prior to the election and not notable after). That said, in general, candidates who are not notable prior to an election run should be redirected to the page about the election, where some information about the candidate and campaign can exist (see WP:POLOUTCOMES.) - Enos733 (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Weak Keep) ... not BLP1E due to the Kellogg's strike and the election ... I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date. Also I disagree that the election coverage is routine, independent candidates don't generally get this much attention. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: You said "I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date"; did you mean to !vote Draftify? Chetsford (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or did you mean keep, as you ivoted, since its not BLP1E based on prominence in Kellogg's strike, since candidacy coverage is not routine, and since AFD is not clean up? Djflem (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford:@Djflem: I don't think it needs to be moved to draftspace. It's a complete article, but needs more sources showing the extent of his involvement with the strike. I believe there is a template someone can add saying it needs more sources. Still voting keep. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable American labor leader who passes general notable guideline requirements WP:GNG. The subject has significant coverage WP:SIGCOV that is in depth and from different national publications indicating that he is an important labor leader. He has received major coverage now due to two events. Passes all requirements for being a notable labor leader per WP:BIO. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is not only known for his senate bid, seeing as there was an article about him during his labor strike [4]. I also disagree with your argument that there is only routine campaign coverage. Some of the coverage is routine, yes, but a full-length, independent article like [5] is significant. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leaving aside WP:NEXIST and the RS coverage that predates the Senate run that satisfies notability as a union leader (eg [6], [7] [8]), I have to echo the comments from XOR'easter. There's actually more damage to Wikipedia's reputation by deleting subjects engaged in high-profile politcal campaigns than leaving a possibly unnotable candidate undeleted until after the election and then conducting a notability discussion. FWIW, I do not think there is a clear community consensus around the application of ROUTINE to elections - it really depends on context and the guideline itself does not contain the word election. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "damage to Wikipedia's reputation" Supposed "damage to Wikipedia's reputation" is not a reason to keep or delete an article. Chetsford (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a political campaign is not one event for the purposes of WP:BLP1E, the RS cover several events, not just him becoming a candidate. Barack Obama is notable despite the article entirely being about the event of "being a politician", just like this individual is notable despite the article being entirely about the event of "being a candidate". POLOUTCOMES only states that candidates don't have presumptive notability, not that they are presumed non-notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sometimes we need to stop obsessing over specific rules and just take a step back to realize how ridiculous these AfD requests can be RyanAl6 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep– WP:NPOV supersedes other rules. Wikipedia is widely used as a news and information source; to remove an article on a candidate in such a major election would fundamentally mean a bias in Wikipedia's content as accessed by people during the election. If Osborn loses it's a different matter and redirecting can then be considered depending on long-term historic notability. But first and foremost we need to be aware of our duty to provide neutral encyclopedic coverage, and this includes coverage of ongoing elections.

This problem of partisan AfD nominations during ongoing elections has been going on for a long time now. Happened with the 2020 US Senate election in Iowa too. I would support the creation of a guideline that proposed deletion/redirection of candidates in elections with significant media coverage should always wait until after the election in question to stop this sort of AfD happening again and again in future. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. An independent candidate presenting a strong challenge to an incumbent candidate for national office in a state the incumbent's party has historically won by significant margins is quite notable. If the challenger loses, I agree the article should be redirected to the election page. With that in mind, I would like to propose the Ross_Perot page be redirected to the 1992_United_States_presidential_election page. Other than running for President, the man was very non-notable. 100.8.239.119 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree to the Perot proposal
Perot is notable for a few other things besides the 1992/1996 elections, such as his work as a private citizen with the Laotian and North Vietnamese (later Vietnamese) government to free POW's and MIA's that were left in Vietnam at the end of the war which started in 1969 during the Nixon administration when he visited Laos and continued until his historic 1992 bid for President, which led to Vietnam's Foreign Ministry making a deal with Perot for him to become its business agent if diplomatic relations were normalized between the US and Vietnam.
This also includes Perot's private investigations of, and attacks upon, defense department official Richard Armitage (b. 1945), as well as Perot's support of "Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out" founded by Jack Gargan (1930-2018).
The evidence that has been provided is more then proficient to declare the Wikipedia page of Ross Perot as notable ~ HistorianL (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mistake "notable" for "important". It's about coverage. DS (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To delete information about a candidate for a US Senate election in the weeks before the election would violate NPOV and be a disservice to voters. Candidates for major offices should qualify as notable, because providing useful information is a key point of Wikipedia. Narayansg (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vem Miller

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Vem Miller (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:BLP1E and an overall lack of coverage aside from the Trump event. SirMemeGod  20:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Security incidents involving Donald Trump#2024 incident at Coachella rally instead? Ss0jse (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge discussion can also take place in Talk:Security incidents involving Donald Trump#Cochella suspect. Ss0jse (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has too many BLP violations to justify keeping the page history. The content isn't very good to begin with; if people wish to add information to the relevant articles they're best off starting from scratch. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls under WP:BLP1E, consistent WP:BLPCRIME violations; the act which this person did is not notable beyond the few sentences in the section in the Donald Trump-related article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cladoselachidae. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cladoselachida

[edit]
Cladoselachida (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 lesser used synonym of Cladoselachidae (see [9] [10]) and most recent studies prefer the family name (e.g [11]). The mindat ref (which is a mirror of the Paleobiology Database) is unreliable (it doesn't even contain Cladoselache the defining genus of the Cladoselachida(e) ) as it cannot accomodate conflicting taxonomic schemes and often contains outdated information. I tried to WP:BLAR it but was reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Not a particularly strong nomination statement has been refuted quite significantly by Shahid. Closing as no consensus due to low participation rate only. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Verma

[edit]
Sukanya Verma (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. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFreeway

[edit]
FilmFreeway (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 unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Hardly meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Ravindranath Rao

[edit]
Y. Ravindranath Rao (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, there are no sources which discuss about the subject in depth. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Boháčik

[edit]
Tomáš Boháčik (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 long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer named Tomáš without sign of meeting WP:GNG. He has never played at professional level as far as I can tell. The only reliable secondary source I found is SME, which contains an image caption and one sentence describing his rumored appointment as coach of FK Mesta Tornaľa. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Egypt–Gaza border. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt–Gaza barrier

[edit]
Egypt–Gaza barrier (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 particular problem with notability, however the article is a totally unjustified near-complete SPINOUT (technically still a spinoff). One quick look at Egypt–Gaza border#Buffer zone by Egypt shows how content-unbalanced the current situation. Advising to urgently merge into Egypt–Gaza border. Running this through AfD so more editors will see the procedure. That said, this is NOT ABOUT NOTABILITY but about content management. The article can also be seen as a CFORK. There is huge overlap. No need to rehash everything so many times. gidonb (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was speedy keep. Opened by a sock of an LTA. Izno (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Kukula

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Marek Kukula (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)

It has been six years since the Daily Mail reported (Redacted). SandrineWiki (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

< Multiple violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy (unsourced speculation about a living individual) redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC) >[reply]

It is curious that, as far as I know, the man himself has not requested his Wikipedia biography be removed. Perhaps he is unaware he has that right. Or perhaps he sees a benefit in it continuing to be the top result on Google for his name? SandrineWiki (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general disclaimer is quite irrelevant in situations where sufficient information exists on which to make an informed judgment consistent with the values of Wikipedia (and one assumes protection of minors is one such value). If there is no actual Wikipedia policy that says <redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC) > should be considered for deletion with a full and thorough debate of the facts, I would be quite surprised.[reply]

I am pretty sure the above redactions are wholly unnecessary and potentially indefensible given the perversity of their effect here. I find it curious, for example, that the matters I spoke of above, now redacted, were freely discussed in the first deletion discussion. They are still visible. "Wikipedia" is still facilitating their discovery (while disavowing general responsibility for their publishing). All I have done is restate the case with the added data points that six years have passed, certain matters relevant to this subject have become newsworthy, and this man still has a LinkedIn profile that says things relevant to those news stories. Given all that, I thought now might be the time Wikipedia editors choose to make an informed choice using the methods they state are the approved means for such things. I am being cautious about what I say now, while having no idea why such cautious is necessary. I made no allegations, criminal or otherwise. Nothing I said was my own invention, it is all easily discovered or inferred, some by the very source I did indeed actually provide to justify my reasoning (the BBC news story). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandrineWiki (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There's still no reason to remove an article because of some allegiation. As your first edit was listing this for AfD, you need to be more familiar with Wikipedia policies. This is something that could have been discussed on the article's talk page. – The Grid (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it appears the nominator may have been using this AFD page to attack or do something to the subject's reputation, or delete because of the subject's reputation. However since earlier content has been redacted, I cannot tell what is going on or the motivation. (And perhaps I don't want to know). There are adequate sources to show notability, and Wikipedia is not censored, like some other web sites may decide to be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see consensus that while the term is routinely used in Hungarian journalism, it doesn't carry the same notability it does in the political system of other countries. Owen× ☎ 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Hungary)

[edit]
Leader of the Opposition (Hungary) (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 not an official title, it's just a debatable list of the strongest opposition party leaders and some BS. Hungarian system is not the US two-party system, it was a pluralist one between 1990-2010, after 2010 it changed to a dominant-party system similar to Singapore, and now it seem to be close to two two-party system (but actually an extra-parlamentary party almost eradicated the support in polls for opposition in Parliament, but they have no MP-s at all, just 7 MEP-s). No idea how stable this era is, and there is still no official opposition leader, like HM most loyal opposition head in UK or Congress/Senate minority leaders in USA. Péter Magyar is just self-proclaimed opposition leader. The article not exists any other wiki, except the Hungarian, currently under deletion talks, with pretty much consensus on delete, and actually this one is the original article, that one is the translation. Huwiki deletion talks: [12] Hörgő (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article says that "is an unofficial title". This term is used in everyday use (journalism, political public speaking, etc.), just a quick Google search proves this. In English wiki, several countries have such article, and not only those countries who adopted Westminster system, see, for instance, Leader of the Opposition (Croatia), Leader of the Opposition (Germany), Leader of the Opposition (Portugal), Leader of the Opposition (Israel), Leader of the Opposition (Albania), and even Leader of the Opposition (Singapore), if it was mentioned, a dominant-party system. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds fair, enwiki is a different thing compared to huwiki. But because it is an unofficial title, it is very debatable. Usually the opposition party's leader with the largest parlamentary fraction was mentioned, but not exclusively, and this changed again with Péter Magyar, whose party has 0 parlamentary seats, but largely seen as opposition leader in the current situation. Why Péter Márki-Zay is not included, while he run against the government with a large opposition coalition in 2022? While the short-lived László Botka MSZP PM candidacy is seen as he was opposition leader, while MSZP was around 10%. Or we just stay by the parliament, then still Ferenc Gyurcsány is the boss, but that will be ridiculous, because his party polls around 3-10%, while Magyar's around 30% or even more now. While during the 1990-94 term, the article stays on the SZDSZ, while later the MSZP got much stronger and won the 1994 elections. During the 1994-98 term, there are 3 leaders from 3 different parties, while MDF was the most strong parlamentary opposition fraction, but yes, in the end of the term, Orbán skyrocketed and became opposition leader, who won in 1998. And Torgyán? Is that a joke? Or his was the 1st opposition party in polls between 1996-97? Source? During the 1998-2002 term, MSZP was definetely the strongest opposition party far both in polls and parliament, but the party leader was the opposition leader? Péter Medgyessy ran against Orbán and won. After 2002, come on, de facto Orbán was the opposition leader, even if he allowed Pokorni and Áder for a short term to de jure lead Fidesz. Ildikó Lendvai, come on, Attila Mesterházy was the 2010 MSZP PM candidate, and in July he took over the party after elections. Later random MSZP and Jobbik leaders, there was no clear opposition leader after 2014. Mesterházy is over, either DK and Jobbik got more popular than MSZP, but it was a chaos. Later they went in a large coalition under Péter Márki-Zay (however his party had almost no support, neither MPs, he just won the primary due he was not like others, and many people thought Ferenc Gyurcsány is the real boss). After April 2022 it is a clear Gyurcsány, but from June 2024 is a clear Magyar, but even if he got super popular very fast, he has still no MEP's like any other "precedessors". And around 10 years ago, it is debated Hungary is still a democracy or not really. If the later, can we count potential satellite party leaders as opposition leaders? Hungary is not that authoritarian for sure, if it even is, but who is the Russian opposition leader? Gennady Zyuganov with the largest group in Duma after Putin's, or more likely Vladimir Kara-Murza or Mikhail Khodorkovsky, after Alexei Navalny died, who was widely considered as abroad, but not very much in Russia. There is a lot of reasons why this article is problematic from a Hungarian perspective, but if we just want to see a broader picture, in the patterns of similar articles, this is still a very vague, chaotic, not neutral article. Hörgő (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there seems to be a consensus on Hungarian WP that this title doesn't exist in Hungary. Of the thirteen 21st century politicians on the list there are only three I would call the most prominent politician of the opposition (Orbán between 2002-2010, Gyurcsány maybe for a few short periods between 2010-2021 and Magyar in 2024). The list doesn't even mention Péter Márki-Zay, who, as the winner of the 2021 primary, is the only one who could legitimately call himself the leader of the opposition. Before 2010 it was clear to everyone in Hungary that Orbán was the de facto opposition leader and Pokorni and Áder were only figureheads. MSZP, shown as the leading opposition party between 2010-2018, received 15% of the votes in 2010 while Jobbik got 12%, the difference is hardly enough to state that everyone on the long list of MSZP's frequently replaced chairpersons deserves to be called a leader of anything other than MSZP. The article states that the opposition leader leads the largest party in the National Assembly which is not part of the government, but the current de facto leader Péter Magyar's party is not even in the National Assembly. Hungarian opposition consists of a bunch of parties, whose public support constantly ebbs and flows, new parties emerge all the time, and it is rare for one person to be the most prominent among all of them. – Alensha talk 03:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "unused, even undefinable concept" (translated from the aforementioned deletion discussion's closing rationale). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghamalia

[edit]
Ghamalia (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)

Donot satisfy WP:GNG. It is merely a subcaste of Kurmi caste, need to mention it in that article that's all. But, a seperate article is not needed. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Kusiima Mbabazi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jamil Kusiima Mbabazi (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 fails WP:GNG and all references fail verification. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) He has two papers, and while one is cited 59 times the one is not cited. Hence there is no notability under WP:NPROF.
2) As mentioned in nomination, many of the sources don't verify (site not found).
3) A web search on either variant of his names only brings up pages that list his job and one customer review he made of a car.
Definitely no indications of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Loffredo

[edit]
Jeremy Loffredo (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 primary focus of the article revolves around a recent event (his arrest in Israel in October 2024), which does not establish long-term notability or significance. There is no significant coverage of Loffredo outside of this incident, and the article lacks in-depth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources about his overall career or contributions as a journalist. This is clearly WP:BLP1E. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cockcroft

[edit]
Billy Cockcroft (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)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Unclear due to lack of citations, but the article appears to have been written using primary sources, and I was unable to locate any additional sources with significant coverage of this person. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Mn1548 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cockcroft

[edit]
Thomas Cockcroft (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)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Unclear due to lack of citations, but the article appears to have been written using primary sources, and I was unable to locate any additional sources with significant coverage of this person. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Mn1548 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources appear to be a family history archive, and two self/privately published books - the same as used for a series of other related articles. I could find nothing of note online and it appears unlikely that many of the details would appear in any other sources. EdwardUK (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summit, DeKalb County, Indiana

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

Internet Archive being down I cannot find what Baker says, but he does list a lot of POs. and this is also a rail spot. But again, there's nothing substantial there, and one of those turn-of-the-century county histories only mentions it once, in passing, as where someone is from. So I'm going to say it's unlikely to have been an actual settlement. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are certainly lots of localities that were never settlements and which don't merit articles, but Summit (though now extinct) does seems to have been an actual town in decades past. It's presented as a town in county maps from 1880 and 1925, and a 1938 article calls it a "village" with a population at that time of about 22 people. It also apparently had a general store[13], schools[14], etc., in addition to the post office mentioned. Various other newspaper references identify people or minor events taking place at Summit. Though the article needs better references, I think it merits being kept and improved. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will withdraw this. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Kochavi

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

Article fails WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD, I checked it. You did well. Thank you! gidonb (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And noting that WP:NCHESS#3 is "Has earned a team or individual medal at a Chess Olympiad or Women's Chess Olympiad.", and she won not just "a medal" but a gold medal. PamD 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The player is notable. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Tarawa

[edit]
Lilia Tarawa (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:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
    This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.
    Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.
    Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.
    Ref 6, women's day interview
    Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.
    Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time
    Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.
    Ref 11 is a promotional piece.
    Ref 12 is a promotional interview
    Ref 13 is an interview
    Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book
    Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier
    Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces
    Ref 18 is a promotional interview
    Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.
    Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death
    Ref 21 is an interview
    Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself
    Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards
    Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview
    Refs 25-27 are interviews
    Ref 28 is promotional
    Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow
    Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book
    Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source
    Ref 32 is about someone else's death
    Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.
    Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces
    Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.
    Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.
    Ref 37 is a podcast interview.
    Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to
    Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it
    So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Schwede66.-Gadfium (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or maybe easier, rescope (retitle) the article to represent coverage of her book. [On reflection, “delete” doesn’t accurately represent my opinion, and I am neutral. 23:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)] None of the sources appear to be doing any fact-checking, and are covering her story as though it were independent reporting, so functionally what they are covering is her story, and most closely her book. Ultimately, media coverage of her herself most resembles something like coverage WP:VICTIM, where as an individual she isn’t that notable, but for the fact that she was the centre of some event, and then wrote it all down and sold the story. Reading that guideline: Outside of her book, or her story, obviously there isn’t some higher-level event-centred article to incorporate her into, and so if we are to just keep the article as is (not an absolutely awful outcome, per my “weak” !vote), her testimony, which should have lead to an article about her own life and experiences, just becomes a page about her. Not optimal, given how much we have to rely on her as primary sourcing, but there is clearly secondary reporting on her talking about her story/book. — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there consensus to delete or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong link. It's discussed here [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's discussed here, not at length [18], this is a good review also [19]. With the Herald and the NZ Review of Books, that should be AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the book is notable but I still see an issue with a lack of independent/non-promotional sources to be able to write an article about the subject. An article about the book with a basic ABOUTSELF about Tarawa might be better. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand is a rather small media market, other than the Guardian, it's all local coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got the two book reviews that talk about the person and the ton of secondary coverage, we can build an article about this person with that. She's a notable author with a decently reviewed book and a story about her life can be built. AUTHOR doesn't have a two book minimum requirement, once you're notable, you're notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'ton of secondary coverage' is largely all promotional pieces with many just quoting the same press-release they've been given. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which is fine once notability has been established, that's how we flesh out articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not suggesting that the promotional pieces should be used as sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As proof she's spoken at TedX and that she's on a book tour, they're fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, there is absolutely zero chance that Tarawa passes WP:AUTHOR as a subject-specific notability guideline on any of its four criteria. — HTGS (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I find the nomination and Wikishovel's contributions the most compelling relative to our P&G's. Daniel (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwan Kumar Bheel

[edit]
Sarwan Kumar Bheel (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 initially draftified this BLP, which was created by IOmParkashSarwanBheel, who clearly has a AUTOBIO/COI based on their username. The BLP is PROMO and contains WP:OR. Later, they submitted the draft for review and after I failed the AFC review, the creator unilaterally moved the BLP to the main namespace. It clearly fails the GNG as well NPOLITICIAN. Additionally, it remains PROMO, contains WP:OR, and has COI/AUTOBIO issues. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that this article is totally based on reality, If this article is against the policies then you may. IOmParkashSarwanBheel (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your feedback and want to address the concerns you've raised.
Conflict of Interest (COI)/Autobiography: While I understand the concern regarding my username and the potential perception of a conflict of interest, I assure you that my intention was to highlight the notable contributions of Advocate Sarwan Kumar Bheel. I have attempted to adhere to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality, but I recognize that my proximity to the subject may have influenced my initial approach. I am open to collaborating with other editors to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view.
Notability (GNG and NPOLITICIAN): I have revised the article to focus on factual details and removed promotional language, aligning it with the general notability guideline (GNG). However, I understand that the notability of the subject must be supported by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If the sources currently included are insufficient, I would be grateful for guidance or assistance in identifying additional references that better demonstrate the subject's notability.
Original Research (WP) and Promotional Tone: I have worked on removing original research and subjective language from the article, striving for a more balanced and encyclopedic tone. I understand that it might still require further adjustments, and I am open to your suggestions on specific areas that need improvement.
Article Move to Main Namespace: Moving the draft to the main namespace after the AFC review was not intended to circumvent the process but rather to seek further feedback. If this action was inappropriate, I apologize, and I am willing to work within the proper review process to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.
I am committed to improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s policies and appreciate your guidance. If there are any specific revisions or additional sources you would recommend, I am more than willing to make those changes.
Thank you once again for your feedback, and I look forward to your response. IOmParkashSarwanBheel (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IOmParkashSarwanBheel, If you hadn't unilaterally moved the draft to the main namespace, I would have definitely helped you fix the issues. However, since you did, I had no choice but to take it to AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Mari

[edit]
Marcello Mari (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 any coverage outside of crypto news. The best known as a founder [...] bit is {{fv}} and the source seems to be some GPT spamfarm in any case. Borderline A7 tbh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:17, 14 October 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 00:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivada Inland Waterways

[edit]
Vivada Inland Waterways (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)

Should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which raises questions about its notability. Furthermore, the content appears promotional in nature, primarily serving as a company advertisement rather than providing an informative overview of inland waterways. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 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! 07:08, 14 October 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! 06:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Hashigaito

[edit]
Koichi Hashigaito (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 1 game in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. The rest came in amateur divisions. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:22, 14 October 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! 06:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Higashi

[edit]
Koichi Higashi (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and one season in Japan's second league 23 years ago being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:21, 14 October 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! 06:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiro Ikeda

[edit]
Masahiro Ikeda (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 9 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. The rest came in amateur divisions. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 14 October 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! 06:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasutaka Nomoto

[edit]
Yasutaka Nomoto (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)

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 6 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Reed Kraus

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jessica Reed Kraus (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. This is also a second nomination. You might want to want check here [20] Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Teen Titans comics#Other comics. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titans/Young Justice: Graduation Day

[edit]
Titans/Young Justice: Graduation Day (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)

Reverted redirect. There are scant sources found on Google News. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What was the Redirect target? Are you seeking Redirection or Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted notices at the Comics Wikiproject and DC task force, to no avail. :-/ I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Just re-read your comic and absorbed it this time. The redirect target would List of Teen Titans comics#Other comics, but I'm fine with either a redirect or deletion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Microsoft. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Egypt

[edit]
Microsoft Egypt (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)

One of many, many country specific subsidiaries of Microsoft that does not seem to be independently notable under WP:NCORP. Brandon (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support redirecting to Microsoft. Brandon (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, Brandon! Going forward, could you please include such ATDs in the intro? gidonb (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chennai Air Show stampede

[edit]
2024 Chennai Air Show stampede (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)

While the article suggests that the five deaths were the result of a human stampede/crush event, law enforcement and the cited news pieces all seem to confirm that those who lost their lives died of a variety of causes related primarily to heat. A case of WP:BLOWITUP with an understanding that this subject may be more notable for the overall event itself, not just the tragic deaths. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wikipedia:notnews and also no evidence. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs the Terrible Lizards

[edit]
Dinosaurs the Terrible Lizards (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 film. Cited sources only talk about the extinction of dinosaurs without mentioning the film at all. Notability is clearly lacking and fails WP:NFILM. CycloneYoris talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Berry, Mark F. (2002). The Dinosaur Filmography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 84–86. ISBN 978-0-7864-2453-5. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.

      The book review the film on pages 84–86 and mentions the film on pages 9, 10, 11, and 357. The book notes: "Commentary: Dinosaurs ... The Terrible Lizards is an unexpectedly polished-looking film, especially in light of the limited resources from which Wah Chang created it. The animation is skilled and the puppets are excellent, without exception. Chang managed to save some time and effort by fashioning more than one head which could be fitted onto the same body, thus converting a Triceratops into a Styracosaurus, then into a Monoclonius, then into a Chasmosaurus, and so on. This tactic helped allow him to parade a small smorgasbord of saurians across the screen, with no fewer than 13 different prehistoric species glimpsed or featured during the film's ten-minute run time. Throughout the film, Chang adds little touches that are unusual for an "educational" film, and that reflect the care he always brought to his art."

    2. Thrash, Sarah (June–July 1987). "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.)". School Library Journal. Vol. 33, no. 10. p. 64. EBSCOhost 5715370.

      The review notes: "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.). 16mm or videocassette. color. 91⁄2 min. Aims. 1986. #9833. 16mm: $250; videocassette: $190 (Rental: $50). Preview avail. Gr 1–8—This lively, animated film shows the evolution of dinosaurs, iden tifies major types, and describes their physical characteristics. The terms are explained and defined to make them more understandable to younger students, and names are superimposed on the screen. In explaining the environment during the time of the dinosaurs, however, not enough information is included on the changes that took place on the earth, and only one theory about the ending of this period is provided. The organization of the material is clear. The only inconsistency is the inclusion of a fully evolved man and woman that are irrelevant to the time period of the film. An interesting film, useful for individual or group viewing."

    3. Bykerk-Kauffman, Ann (May 1995). "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (revised)". Journal of Geological Education. 43: 272. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.3.266. ISSN 0022-1368. EBSCOhost 508557355.

      The abstract notes: "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (Revised) ($50), from AIMS Media, is a 10-minute videotape that features the locations of dinosaur finds on a world map; gives a very brief synopsis of the evolution of life on Earth; and focuses on showing, naming, and describing various types of dinosaur. This program is intended for children aged 7–13 years, is very appealing to children, but contains little scientific information."

    4. Garrison, Jim (Winter 1971). "Dinosaurs ... the Terrible Lizards". Cinefantastique. Vol. 1, no. 2. p. 32. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "Although Dinosaurs...the Terrible Lizards will probably be viewed by only a few fortunate students in the junior high level science classes in the Los Angeles City Schools, its realistic cinematic monsters are as lifelike as any used in a major studio production. Largely a natural history documentary, the film was produced in color by Wah Chang, of "Projects Unlimited" fame, and animated by Douglas Beswick for the Los Angeles Board of Education, and brings to life most of the dinosaurs of the past. There are approximately twelve to fifteen different types of these beasts in the film, including Brontosaurus, Ceolophysis, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Monoclonius, and the Tyranosaurus Rex. Narrated in laymen's terms, the film explains the general lifecycle of dinosaurs and why they became extinct. It also describes through diagrams how large some dinosaurs were: one diagram compares a Brontosaurus to an ordinary one-story house."

    5. This Film & Video Review Index notes:

      DINOSAURS: THE TERRIBLE LIZARDS [MP]

      Encyclopedia Britannica 1977 24M $320P $25R Order #3504 Previews 7:3 Nov78 p14 Michele Smith

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect, it would be nice to have these newly found sources get an additional review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the reviews are from reputable sources. Clearly notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Roots. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kelley (bassist)

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

This person fails WP:BANDMEMBER, article should be redirected to The Roots. For a longer rationale, see the reply I gave to the article creator after my initial redirection. Mach61 23:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my argument was for a redirect, but in the end, the article was kept. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry for that yes I see now your argument was for a redirect for the Kamal Gray article, but in the end it was kept. Hexatekin (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hexatekin "The Roots" and "The Tonight Show Band" are currently one-and-the-same, this argument is clearly against the spirit of WP:BAND#C6. Mach61 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well I added another source and I will attempt to add more sources in the next few days, as I do believe he has been written about a bunch over the past 15ish years since joining The Roots. Hexatekin (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hexatekin
The sources you added consist of:
  • A non-independent interview with Premier Guitar
  • An OkayPlayer that, like the Inquierer article previously mentioned has little to say of Kelley himself
  • Another No Treble album announcement that has little to say about Kelley
Mach61 14:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect to The Roots would indeed be an encyclopaedically acceptable alternate route. -The Gnome (talk) 13:59, 12 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! 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start – Socialist Internationalist Organisation

[edit]
Start – Socialist Internationalist Organisation (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)

General failure to demonstrate notability. Article purely sourced from its own website and then International (CWI) (WP:ABOUTSELF violation). Attempt to find reliable sources showed no notable coverage in terms of news coverage. Some results appear on Google Scholar but from those I was able to access in English there are few mentions and those appeared trivial and more to do with outside organisations such as SYRIZA.

Article has been appropriately maintenance tagged for several years now yet improvement has not appeared.

Given that the International they are now affiliated to is non-notable (International Standpoint) there looks to be no obvious redirect target, so proposing deletion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – My community barbeque has been around for 75 years, and it was even sponsored by the city. However, there are no reliable sources covering it in-depth, so it doesn't deserve an article of its own. Yue🌙 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Team Titans. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prester Jon

[edit]
Prester Jon (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 sources cited since 2009! Fails GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Sung-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#North_Korea. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 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.