Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 22	October 24 >

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 redirect‎ to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Kwang-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As individual is a verified international footballer, but needs more sources. Would just class as a stub article for now, Jattlife121 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing that however the problem is that there aren't anymore sources. Simione001 (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea Lâm (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Someone with specific expertise might be able to find some references given the subject matter, but it's fine if this is recreated later when those references are found as well. A redirect is better than a delete, and a little bit more time would be better than a redirect here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International footballer.Quotevegas (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea - with no prejudice against future expansion if sources are found. Suriname0 (talk) 19:18, 30 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 Cognita. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charterhouse Square School

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

I tagged this article about an independent primary school with potential notability issues in February this year. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and added coverage of the school's acquisition by Cognita and its 2004 inspection, which received some media attention; both these references are to the same newspaper, the Evening Standard. I cannot find significant independent coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the school satisfies WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The other references and links are to the school's website, its inspection reports, the Department for Education and the association of which it is a member. This is run of the mill coverage which does not demonstrate notability. I found a letter in The Spectator about its admission procedures, a brief mention in a memoir by Andrew Mitchell (his children went there), coverage by an architectural firm of the work it did for the school, a write-up by an advertising agency of the campaign it carried out for the school, details on the council's site about the School Street restrictions around the building. None of these are significant coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cognita, maybe? I had a look at the Times Digital Archive, and there's no in-depth coverage there either - only a few passing mentions as one of the schools in the City. The Evening Standard was functionally a local paper for central London at the time of the references, so it's reasonable that they would cover it but it doesn't demonstrate interest outside the local area. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cognita per Adam Sampson. Not independently notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nom). Redirect to Cognita is a good idea, agree. Tacyarg (talk) 19:31, 30 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 Userify‎. Clear consensus for deletion. Since I expect to immediately be asked to undelete this, I'll be moving it to userspace directly. asilvering (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Martial Arts

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

This article fails the second WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being an WP:NOESSAY that is full of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The section listing Christian martial arts programs violates WP:NOTDIR. Sources are primary; while there are several self-published sources available, there is no independent, reliable, secondary coverage of this topic on which to base an encyclopedic treatment. (A quick note on the provenance of this page: I draftified it in September during new page review and the creator later returned it to mainspace. Another editor inadvertently draftified it a second time and then reverted per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Hence it is now at AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Martial arts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. This is not ready to be an encyclopedic entry as it is not objective and contains WP:PEACOCK. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand Wikipedia editing (I am new to it and learning), one of the first things I read is that editors are to try to improve articles and make them ready for Wikipedia. Why seek deletion when, based on your comment (not ready), improvement and inclusion appear to be viable? Bushido77 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all of the un-needed bold and left it as italics (Bushido77 has already been warned about). I have no rebuttal to this comment by Bushido77 as it appears they have not understood or refuse to listen to anything from the several discussions concerning their articles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I missed something. What I read in the Wikipedia guidelines is that some bold type is allowable. Please advise as to which article says no bold type. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that the article as it currently stands is more of a sermon than an encyclopedic entry and would need much revision, perhaps on an entry on religious views on martial arts or something of that sort could be created in the future. While I have found articles analyzing martial arts from a Christian perspective (and that is indeed the sourcing being provided), there is not enough quality sourcing and scholarly analysis regarding a martial arts specialty within Christianity to create an encyclopedic article. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article "would need much revision", would it not be appropriate to allow for such revisions to be made, rather than simply delete the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rejected three times by three different editors as a draft (on top of at least one regular decline) and for good reason, since there's no sourcing to support the claim that this is a recognised type of martial art. It's all original research. --bonadea contributions talk 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, no one claimed it is a recognized type of martial art. Similar to taekwondo and karate, Christian martial arts are also a subset of the martial arts. Under taekwondo and karate there are thousands of different developed styles. It is similar with Christian martial arts, under this banner there are many different styles. Bushido77 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the Wikipedia page about editors I read, the first response of an editor is to seek to improve the page to make it acceptable for inclusion. Instead biased opinions have done nothing to encourage correcting the page... just deleting it and a months worth of work goes down the toilet.

It appears that Wikipedia editors pick and choose the parts of the Wikipedia guides that they want to adhere to.

NONE of the article is original research. Bushido77 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should assume good faith here on Wikipedia. Complaining like this will have no effect on whether the article gets deleted, and only serves to antagonize others. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. My frustration with the Wikipedia process got the better of me. Bushido77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus = four of us are in a room and I have $100. The other three agree that I must give them the money and they take it. Consensus got them what they wanted... but the majority does not make it right. Bushido77 (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, decisions are based on consensus, not voting. Consensus is reached through reasoned arguments that demonstrate both the article’s usefulness and its reliance on reliable, independent sources, neither of which this article has. Sorry. Nswix (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is not based on "voting", why have I been told to only highlight "keep" once because we are only allowed to vote once? It has also been referred to as voting by others as well. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido, you are WP:SHOUTing again. Remove your bold text from this AfD, and only bold the word keep once, to make it easier for whoever closes this deletion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i rejected the draft and author decides to move to mainspace. Is complete WP:OR. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. That was due to me being a newbie and someone else telling me that I could do that. Bushido77 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Three of the four sources are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and the fourth is non-notable, so the article fails WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Four sources?" I am not sure what you are looking at. When I created the article that were about 30 books and magazine articles (including Black Belt magazine) that discussed Christian martial arts and about 30 links to Christian martial arts ministries.

Sad - I just looked and someone edited out all of those various links. Now I see why you only saw four. There used to be many more. Bushido77 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is a total lack of significant coverage. The claim in 2024 that we have no standards is untenable. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC) FWIW, the links were removed as spam. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the article before they deleted all of the links? There were approximately 30 books and magazine articles and approximately 30 Christian martial arts ministries.

I have no idea who or why all of those references were deleted from the article. I have them saved, if yo would like to see the many links. (Are they still available somewhere here on Wikipedia? I am new to editing.) Bushido77 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can links to Black Belt magazine be spam? How can links to books be spam? How could links to Christian martial arts ministries be spam?

Wow, Wikipedia is extremely confusing. Bushido77 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bushido77 the changes can all be seen in the article's history. It's true, there are a lot of rules here, which can be overwhelming for a newcomer (which is why many of us recommend that newcomers learn the most important rules by working on improving existing content rather than trying to write new articles from scratch first).

In your case, I think the most important guidelines that you need to consider are Reliable sources and § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As others have already pointed out, assuming good faith on the part of other editors, and accepting that Wikipedia works by consensus, are also essential. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am trying to learn. But I still don't understand how Black Belt magazine and published books are "spam." Bushido77 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. lack of significant coverage doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Google. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talks at Google

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

Redirect to Google. Not independently notable and lack of WP:SIGCOV about Talks at Google as a standalone subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google as a viable ATD, per Longhornsg. Sal2100 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Music, Entertainment, Science, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google.It is not independently notable and fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Pretty much nothing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, no-brainer. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:01, 30 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!} 21:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barb Kelly

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

Biography of a mayor, not demonstrated as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors, and the notability test hinges on the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of reliable source coverage, about her political career: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But this barely goes any further than "there once was a mayor who lived and died, the end", and is referenced entirely to three short blurbs that aren't enough to pass WP:GNG all by themselves, with no evidence of genuinely substantive coverage shown at all.
The mere fact that she existed is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to have a lot more substance, and a lot more sourcing to support it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was mayor of a municipality of almost 80,000 folks. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with our notability criteria for mayors. Those hinge on the quality and depth of what can be said about her mayoralty based on reliable sources, and confer absolutely no exemptions from that just because of the population of the municipality. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent, reliable sources that demonstrate her notability --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIALMENTION; no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:21, 30 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. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire

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

Regretfully, it seems that the book does not satisfy our criteria for noitability. --Altenmann >talk 21:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment haven't searched in depth yet, but the Estonian title is Vene impeeriumi rahvaste punane raamat, according to a German article, to help with searches. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviewed in two Estonian publications here and here. Searching in Estonian is hard and I found these on Google so I would bet more, but this fulfills WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's also an interesting (though not sigcov) callback to it here: [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to those mentioned above, there's a roughly 200 word long review in English in Vol.2 No.9 p.59 of Library & Information Update published by Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. This should be enough for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in non-English sources noted above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass NBOOK when factoring in non-English sources. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 12:45, 29 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} 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woh Aik Pal

AfDs for this article:

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

While I found a lot of name-check coverage, I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Therefore, I'm taking this to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.gqindia.com/binge-watch/collection/7-best-pakistani-dramas-mx-player-offer-unique-entertainment-experience/ and similar coverage (this one bylined) ; +coverage about production+ notable cast and crew+ mildly significant nomination= all in all, a certain notability; if other users judge this is not enough, redirect to the page about the writer, Samira Fazal, and merge (or with/to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV); opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I’m also open to the idea of redirect/merging it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable news sources [2] [3] Received nomination at Lux Style Awards which is country's notable and significant annual award show. [4] Sometimes spell as Woh Ek Pal. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This isn’t SIGCOV; it’s just routine coverage. Also, being nominated for the Lux Style Awards isn’t enough to establish WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is clearly under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and not reliable for notability. GQ is a good verification it exists, but not significant (it is included in a list of shows).--CNMall41 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Should be deleted. Not encyclopedic material. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibear47, ~~someone already filed SPI that you are supporting nominator in almost every AFD initiated by him, so you should present better reason instead of just voting delete to support a nominator.~~ Also, you need to see WP:ATA. Libraa2019 (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry. My reasoning does need to be improved. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, I think you should stop your bullying tactics, as it seems like you’re overdoing it. It’s not a crime to share the same opinion nor do I see their vote as WP:ATA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, No need of WP:bludgeon, i've just noticed you are canvassing others for supporting you in AFD's [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] therefore i am not fully wrong. Also WP:AGF. You have filed an SPI against me which is bullying actually. Libraa2019 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib and Libraa2019, both of you, focus on the article and its sources, not each other. Don't bring up SPIs in an attempt to sway editors in offering their assessments of this article. That could be seen as attempted intimidation which can result in a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources on the page are unreliable. So are those listed above and in my search. Plenty of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and mentions in references about the actors, but nothing significant about the show itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admin already notified here not to use WP:NEWSORGINDIA in Pakistan related AFD's and do not use it as a justification for deletion. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis (as requested) - The first four are on the page, the rest were presented in the discussion above. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happymaza, Not sure what this source is and cannot locate anything on the Waybackmachine.
The International News, references says nothing about the series.
News18, typical churnalism as we see often. Falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and cannot be used to establish notability.
Dawn, as with The International News source, says nothing about the series. In fact, the reference is used to support an award nomination and the reference doesn't even support that.
GQ India, probably the only source that comes close to significant coverage. It is one of of seven series listed in a listicle and has one paragraph (five sentences) with a brief overview.
The Tribune, also falls under NEWSORGINDIA. But, even if it was bylined, the source only contains one mention of the series where the writer was nominated for an award.

Keep - The serial aired back in 2017 and have still information available on websites as per above sources analysis (i.e, GQ India, Tribune and The News), I can't recall what exactly the policy said but there was something regarding serials that aired before 5 recent years should be considered notable on the basis of their available reference cites. Therefore, I feel rather than going for the quantity considering the coverage, it should be kept plus I found some sources on search as well like this.Reshmaaaa (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC) — Reshmaaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can't recall what the policy yet only have 10 edits prior to this AfD discussion so you must have just saw it unless you have prior editing experience. By the way, the source you provided above falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so cannot be used for notability. Nothing else you provided in your keep vote is policy-based. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do have minimal contribution cause I prefer going by the rules and policies and I'm taking my time to read policies and guidelines. Anyways, in Wikipedia:Notability (television) under WP:NTVNATL, it's clearly mentioned why this should be kept as it aired not only on National television plus it has garnered broader regional coverage. Neither it was instantly cancelled or aired on a minor secondary channel to be not notable. Since that's what policy said, so in line with it I have voted "Keep".Reshmaaaa (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're referencing an essay and second, this essay states that television program is more likely to be notable if it airs on a network of television stations. However, I don't see it as notable because if it were, it would have easily met the GNG. PS. Declare your other sock accounts! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YES, It has been aired on Hum TV as well as Hum Sitaray so it is more likely to be notable as it has aired on a network of television stations plus it has been available for streaming in India as well, making it notable as per the said essay. As far as your claim of sock account is concerned, see User talk:Reshmaaaa. Reshmaaaa (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reshmaaaa, Just because it aired on some TV channels doesn't make it WP:N; it has to meet GNG, which nobody has been able to demonstrate yet. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The essay I mentioned itself establishes WP:N regarding WP: Notability (TV) and the article falls under this category I guess. I'll leave it to closing admin now to decide. I'll stick to my vote cause I see it as a notable show as per WP:Notability (TV) as I mentioned earlier. Reshmaaaa (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Liz already notified here not to use WP:NEWSORGINDIA in Pakistan related AFD's and do not use it as a justification for deletion therefore it is not a valid point to mention here. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not how that works. There has been disagreement about the application of NEWSORGINDIA but no consunsus if it applies to ONLY India or the subcontinent. You could always bring it up on the RSN but Wikipedia relies on consensus, not dictatorship. Those sources are being challenged as unreliable. It would be up to you to show how they are reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the case is similar here, your vote is based on WP:NEWSORGINDIA sites and Liz has clearly quoted here not to use it as a justification in future Afds. Reshmaaaa (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reshmaaaa, No offense to Liz, but I also believe WP:NEWSORGINDIA is relevant here and should apply to every Pakistan-related AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the comment left by Liz. I am also aware that some others have expressed their concern that it doesn't apply to media outlets outside of India. I am also aware that others have expressed that it DOES in fact apply to media outlets in the region. What you are inferring is that we should honor an admin's statement because they are an admin. I respect their opinion, but again, consensus is what governs. Also, you keep going back to this statement instead of showing how the disputed sources are in fact reliable which would be more helpful to the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 I'm not keep going back to that statement, I'm just linking your vote with a closing admin's decision. Based on it your vote becomes null and void since you've yourself said it in your source analysis that One of the sources covers WP:SIGCOV and others are WP: NEWSORGINDIA, which is not supposed to be a decisive factor in deleting this article. And are you sure this reference says nothing about article cause apparently it does mention the show in it's title and based solely on the show, Isn't it? Reshmaaaa (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do keep going back to the statement by saying my !vote is null and void. I have stated (twice now) why the statement by an admin is not consensus. As far as the reference you provided above, it is NOT significant coverage. It is about one of the actors and mentions the show. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in your source analysis you said the reference said nothing about the show now you're saying it isn't WP:SIGCOV. No offense but your analysis doesn't seems to be reliable to me. And reference just doesn't mention the show, it gives out detail as to main character along side other cast and characters. Reshmaaaa (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, I said "series," not "show." And yes, I stand by that statement - "Nothing "about" the show" (quotation added to the "about) - It is about Feroze Khan and his role, not about the serial itself. This is becoming ad nauseam so I will ask one final time - are you able to demonstrate why the sources are reliable? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, 1, 2, 3 are covering WP:SIGCOV, you've agreed with one of them being WP:SIGCOV as well. Secondly, it does meet WP: Notability (TV). You still think it is not notable as it meets WP:Independent, WP:Secondary, WP:Notability (TV) and WP:SIGCOV. Keeping in mind show aired sometime back, if it still meets these guidelines than it should stay. Leaving it to closing admin now, don't want to further stretch it anymore, Thanks.Reshmaaaa (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────────┘
I endorse the source assessment done by CNMall41. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reshmaaa:, do not put words in my mouth. I said it was the closest to significant coverage. Significant coverage says "directly and in detail." In addition to the first source not being in detail, it is also not reliable under NEWSORGINDIA, at least for the purpose of establishing notability. The second we have already addressed as being the "closest to significant coverage" than anything else avaiable. The third is no where close to addressing it in detail. It is mentioned with the actor in a series they are in. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with CNMall41's convincing source analysis. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument about WP:NEWSORGINDIA is a total red herring here. The sources in the above discussion that have been dismissed for this reason are very obviously not reliable, independent sources. Whether they're unreliable, non-independent sources from Pakistan or from India is immaterial; they're useless for showing a pass of WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 30 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!} 21:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Mirza

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

This whole article reads more as a press release and resume to PROMOTE the subject and covers the works he has appeared in only briefly with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, using loaded language such as "celebrated" in reference to some of those works. A general overreliance on unreliable sources such as IMDb and some profiles of British-specific sites, this subject does not appear to have had any significant coverage or major roles in multiple significant media he has partaken in, failing WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACTOR. The four sources citing how he is "widely known" all relate to the same Tesla report, and brief stints such as a Minecraft collab and refs simply noting what he has reported on do not prove the notability of the subject himself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, News media, Film, Television, and England. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe subject was an actor in Beyond Belief - Talking to the Dead (2021) which won two awards however unfortunately, he was not the recipients of this awards. Hence he does not meet the notability guide for an actor Tesleemah (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete The subject fails WP:NACTOR Afro 📢Talk! 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for lack of significant coverage in any independent sources about the subject. Many thousands of totally non-notable people have IMDB pages, including my domestic partner. Stories on BBC News are not about him, but either by him, or about other people and topics. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 26 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!} 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dolichodouglas

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

No pubmed hits for this term [10], no english language hits on google books, only 4 french language textbooks (2 of which old), majority of google search hits are wikipedia pages or sites which duplicate wp content. Not sure this is a common enough term in English language? Moribundum (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Moribundum (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only english language scientific source I can find: [11], which is an abstract about a surgical video at a convention in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribundum (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 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!} 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or redirect to Rectouterine pouch, but mentioning this term doesn't seem useful at the target page. Suriname0 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this is just a translation, so WP:RFOREIGN applies and suggests we shouldn't have the redirect. Suriname0 (talk) 17:55, 24 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!} 07:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vahanas used in Goan temples

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

No sign this article isn't just WP:SYNTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Goa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 17 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!} 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LIST - it’s just a random list of things in other things, without any verifiable references, and without even trying to tie any of the things in other things into any coherent thing. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 26 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific War and Contingent Victory

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

Irresponsible, misleading and of the nature of personal attack.

This is a very poorly written book review and shows every sign that the author of the Wikipedia article consulted other book reviews and relied on them, rather than reading The Pacific War and Contingent Victory itself.

The section “Premise” is misnamed. In this section, the author attempts to present the thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory through a brief summary of the argument. By calling the section “Premise” the author implies that the book does not contain an argument but is rather a mere assertion or proposition, which is incorrect. The book contains a fully formed argument, complete with premises and conclusion.

In the first sentence, the author writes, “In The Pacific War and Contingent Victory, Myers argues against the dominant belief that the economic and industrial superiority of the United States made Japan's defeat in World War II an inevitability.” This statement is basically correct, but the author fails to mention that the view that Japan’s defeat was inevitable is contested. Jeremy Yellen, for example, in his review of a book chapter by Myers, argues that contemporary Japanese scholars do not hold the inevitability view. See Jeremy A. Yellen, Social Science Japan Journal, Volume 25, Issue 1, Winter 2022, Pages 157–160. The author should unpack what “dominant belief” means in this context. It could mean that immediate postwar historiography and recent writing alike hold inevitable defeat as the predominant view.

The next sentence, “The book proposes an invasion of Australia and Hawaii, or the United States negotiating a peace settlement due to war exhaustion as two scenarios that could have allowed Japan to avoid defeat in the war” is incorrect and reflects neither the book itself nor the review that the author uses as a source. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory never proposes an invasion of Australia. It does not propose “scenarios” at all but rather gives evidence from Japanese sources of Japan’s plan to isolate Australia by invading Fiji, Samoa and New Caledonia, the so-called FS Operation. Japan did made plans to invade the Hawaiian Islands. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory concludes that these plans were rational plans in the context of 1942 Japanese strategic decision-making. It never argues that Japan ought to have adopted one or both plans in order to avoid defeat.

The thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is thus misstated; the argument of the book is completely neglected.

The Section “Reception” does not address positive and negative criticism of the book in a way that the reader can use to form a judgment about the relative merits or shortcomings of the book. Rather, the author collects various generalized remarks in a haphazard and irresponsible way. In the positive comments, the author does not tell, for example, why the book is useful or worthy of study, or how it is well-researched. The negative comments reflect the worst subjective judgments but are adduced as if they are valid conclusions. Bernstein’s comments really amount to nothing more than personal attacks on the author of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory with such judgments as that the book is “greatly flawed” and the author engages in “wishful thinking” and is “ignorant.” It’s irresponsible to repeat these in a book review where the argument of the book itself is not discussed in detail.

The author writes of Bernstein, “He suggested that the opportunities given by Myers were not realistic, as Japan's failure to occupy either Port Moresby or the Battle of Coral forcibly put them on the defensive. Bernstein went on to suggest that ‘the author fundamentally misunderstands the nature of maritime warfare’, and that he ‘places too much emphasis on armies’, who Bernstein argued have no strategic use without proper aerial and naval support.” Both these criticisms are beside the point. The first one is not grammatical as one cannot occupy a battle. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory does discuss Japan’s failure to occupy Port Moresby and the outcome of the Battle of Coral Sea, but in the context of the FS operation and the end of Japanese expansion. The charge that the author of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory “fundamentally misunderstands the nature of maritime warfare” because he does not believe the inevitability thesis is a non sequitur. Nowhere does the author of The Contingent War and Pacific Victory argue that armies need not have aerial and naval support. The author of the Wikipedia review has chosen an irresponsible review and repeated it with glad abandon.

Finally, the summary of Bob Seal’s review is revealing of the lack of understanding of the thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory by both Seals and the author who here quotes him. Of course, all warfare can be described as contingent. That is exactly the point. The problematic set out by The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is, Why is all warfare considered contingent yet the Pacific War is not?

The book review of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is irresponsible and poorly written. It contains unwarranted personal attacks. The entire article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Nidrsta (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should not be deleted just because they are poorly written, see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Any issues can be settled by editing the article itself. The main reason why an article should be deleted is that it is not notable as defined by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is not an original book review. Wikipedia articles should summarize other book reviews, instead of writing an original review, as this would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Criteron #3, "No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". Nomination misunderstands the deletion policy and wrongly claims that the article is an original book review. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Notability (books). To Nidrsta, your claim that "the author of the Wikipedia article consulted other book reviews and relied on them" is especially relevant, because that is exactly the point of Wikipedia as a website. It's not our job to engage in WP:Original research and write our own reviews or argumentation of books we've read. Loafiewa (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion is that the article is irresponsible, misleading and of the nature of personal attack. I do not request deletion "just because" it is poorly written. You may review the reasons and the citation of evidence in support of them. Wikipedia reviews should summarize other reviews, but having read the original book and being familiar with its contents does not constitute original research. It constitutes responsibility in speaking about one's topic. Cherry picking other people's reviews for their emotive power, giving falsehoods about the argument of the book, and passing along ad hominem arguments is grounds for deletion rather than editing, because the entire article is irredeemable as written. Nidrsta (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to this book? If you do, you should disclose it per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you change the subject and refuse to address the topics raised? You're not supposed to ask that, and I take it as a form of harassment. "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline." Nidrsta (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: (a) users with a COI are required to disclose their COI, as per WP:COI, and (b) you haven't actually given a policy compliant reason for the article to be deleted. The entire basis of the nomination is because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Axad12 (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Military, Japan, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I slightly re-arranged the nomination statement to have it follow norms. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per above. None of these rationales are valid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Suggestions for improvement belong on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination lacks any merit in terms of policy and OP surely either has an undeclared COI or is simply a WP:POV pusher. E.g. see above where the user incorrectly notes that users should not ask others to declare COI (in which case why is there a standard talk page template for requesting just that?) and further states incorrectly at COIN [12] that they have no need to declare a COI because any potential conflict of interest is between me and Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 03:13, 24 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. Owen× ☎ 19:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stanislavjevic

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

Not notable boxer. Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Canada. Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 8 wins in 29 fights, it's clear he fails WP:NBOX. The article has only one source and it's to a database. My own search found some fight results and announcements plus some database links. None of that is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 26 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. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List most reviewed places in ASEAN

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

Fails WP:LISTN, no evidence that being one of the "most reviewed places" on Google Maps in the ASEAN region is a notable grouping of characteristics, no reliable sources about this combination. Fram (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and Asia. Fram (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Most reviews on Google Maps" is not the same as "most reviewed", nor is it a notable topic. Looks like Indonesians particularly enjoy using this site to review their shopping malls and attractions, but I'm not sure why anyone is supposed to care about this presentation of data. Reywas92^Talk 19:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence this specific criterion for this specific grouping of countries meets LISTN, especially with nearly no secondary coverage. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN no evidence that most reviewed on Google maps in ASEAN is notable and it lacks reliable sources for this combination.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the title is not plain english, the subject is not actually ASEAN (one Singapore item), but actually Indonesia, the notion of a list of review is specifically what WP:NOT and WP:ABOUT are at pains to discriminate content, the style of lists as being not what wikipedia is about, Google Maps is not in any way a reliable source, the lack of third party references is glaring, and the added clarification (after the page was moved from the first Prod, and this Afd was put up) of notions of what the components of the reasoning provides about reviews and the assumed validity (which goes back to WP:NOT) simply exhibits that there is no clear understanding of what wikipedia is about.JarrahTree 02:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. The concept is strange. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 11:09, 26 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!} 07:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish films of 1972

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

Almost all redlinks and tagged uncited for years. Either I have misunderstood the Wayback Machine or the cite on the Turkish article only goes as far as B Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: a perfectly standard list and an obviously notable topic anyway. I am absolutely opposed to the deletion of this. The number of red links is a mere cleanup issue, as is the lack of references. The fact that some articles about films (look at the number of blue links on the Turkish corresponding list, that goes to Zulüm (blue there)) have not been created yet is rather a good reason to keep this! "In 1972, Turkey was the third-largest film producer in the world with 300 feature films..." (Gronemeyer, Andrea, Film, Barron's, 1998, p. 147) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we assume that this message implies that the nominator feels their concerns have been reasonably addressed? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I know very little about the subject it would be good to wait for a third opinion I think Chidgk1 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination. From no references to 17 it now shows reliable sources coverage that shows that the subject of the list is clearly notable as per WP:NLIST, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Mccapra (talk) 00:17, 24 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 Batman, Turkey. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Arena

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

No refs on the page for more than 4 years. I don't speak Turkish but there are no useful sources on tr.wiki. I'm not seeing notability outside of Batman Petrolspor JMWt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Turkey. JMWt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman, Turkey, two football clubs play there. Maybe better off on the city page, it's mentioned there. Govvy (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:55, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn. No arguments for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hadachek

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

As a non U.S., non American football editor I’m perplexed by this article. I find it hard to imagine that someone who has spent most of their career as a school coach, with a brief stint as a university coach, could genuinely be notable. They clearly have coverage in local press but this article is essentially a stub with some team stats tacked on. There may be a case for redirecting but I’m not sure where, and overall, deletion seems the best course to me, but perhaps others will have a different view. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the locality of the coverage has no bearing on his notability and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). The Sioux City Journal article is WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per sources from Cbl62. Alvaldi (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His only stint as a collegiate head coach was at Buena Vista, which is not a major program, but my searches turned up SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. For example: (1)Former coach living a dream, (2) Former Drake aide/part 2, (3) Dysart native makes BV a winner, (4) Top Drake assistant Hadachek is leaving, (5) Hadachedk selected as new Union football coach, (6) Hadachek gives up BV reins, (7) Dysart native Joe Hadachek named next head football coach, (8) Joe Hadachek on his decision to resign, (9) Hadachek bids farewell to Union Football, (10) Hadacheks share special bond through football. Cbl62 (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources presented by Cbl62 contain the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw thanks everyone. Mccapra (talk) 18:50, 26 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 Foundation universe#Psychohistory. asilvering (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistory (fictional science)

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

Mostly unsourced or sourced to the author himself. This appears to be a split of the Foundation universe and describes similar subject matter with less references. It could be a useful redirect but there is otherwise very little sourced material to WP:PRESERVE. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either trim down ruthlessly or delete; this article has become massively overgrown, and its material belongs in either the Foundation universe article or the articles about the individual books. — The Anome (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Jontesta: There seem to be quite a few hits in secondary sources on first glance. Could you please comment on the results of the WP:BEFORE search? Or was there a main reason other than notability for the deletion nomination? Daranios (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main rationale is that this is a WP:FORK of Foundation universe. My WP:BEFORE search only offered limited material that is already covered at Foundation universe or the individual books. (Or sometimes Hari Seldon.) The creator of the article agreed to deletion or an WP:ATD associated with the universe article. Jontesta (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether this is notable, the current contents—being almost entirely (excessively detailed) in-universe information—do not warrant a stand-alone article as opposed to covering the relevant bits in related articles on the works themselves, as suggested above. If the article is not expanded with other kinds of content during the course of this discussion, it would seem like a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation at the moment. I would also question whether the extremely lengthy excerpts/quotes in the "Asimov on psychohistory" are okay from a copyright perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe#Technology where what it is and its role in the plot of the series is already described. As it is a core component of the plot of the franchise, I agree completely with TompaDompa that this is a WP:NOPAGE situation where it is best covered as part of overall discussion of the series and has no need to be spun out as a separate article, particularly when that separate article is just ridiculously overly detailed plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I've now created a "Psychohistory" sub-section within the Foundation universe article, as the concept is so central to the plot of the series. But it needs nowhere near the level of detail in this article, which is quite excessive. — The Anome (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice! I would recommend Foundation universe#Psychohistory as my updated recommendation for a Redirect target, then. Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No before articulated, a brief search shows Journal of Psychohistory exists, so we need to have a clear delineation of why this isn't that--that is, I understand the differences, but those arguing for deletion own the burden to demonstrate why <2 of all RS citing psychohistory might apply to this topic. Much per Daranios, but this needs to be a bit more forceful. "This article sucks" is a great argument for cleanup, to which I have no objection, but not a valid argument for deletion. I am glad that Rorshacma and others understand that this must at least remain a redirect, but it is not clear to me why BLAR was not tried first. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the delineation between Psychohistory the real science discussed by the Journal of Psychohistory and Psychohistory (fictional science)? WP:AGF, I am trying to understand why you are bringing up a journal about a different topic, covered by a different article, which is not up for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to rephrase: Since there is both a real science and a fictional science, there's a lot of BEFORE to go through, none of which has been demonstrated, to assess that there's nothing with which to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, improvement need not necessarily happen at this title. If the current contents would be better covered at a different article (or several) per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there's nothing stopping us from doing that and splitting those contents into a stand-alone article if and when improvement/expansion has happened to a sufficient extent that doing so would be motivated. TompaDompa (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's rather peculiar to simultaneously argue that the article should be kept and that it would have been better to WP:Blank and redirect the article than to bring it to WP:AfD. Those seem like contradictory positions to me, but maybe there's something I'm missing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; both are process-based critiques: 1) BEFORE wasn't attempted based on the confounding similarly named real science, and 2) if all that was desired was BLAR, why was BLAR not done editorially before bringing this needlessly to AfD? Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are aware that WP:BLARs are frequently contested and editors told to take it to WP:AfD. Some editors even consider WP:BLAR without preceding AfD to be an inappropriate form of "stealth deletion". AfD is one way to build consensus and get a mandate for redirects and merges expected to be potentially controversial. WP:BLAR says An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. and WP:CONRED, which is part of WP:BEFORE, says that If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.. For that matter, WP:BEFORE says to Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability—but the stated reason in the nomination is not a lack of notability but being a needless split. You seem to me to be overly focused on process to the detriment of actually determining what the best course of action for dealing with the article and its contents might be. Remember that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any indication that this was controversial? I didn't see one, but I clearly could have missed it. I'm not a huge fan of unannounced BLARs either, but I've learned a while ago that we've developed a process that's a cohesive whole, even the parts I don't prefer, and that running the process in good faith is the best way to achieve encyclopedic results. That's not bureaucratic so much as it is a series of checks and balances. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there was any such indication here specifically, but I also don't think it really matters—it's not unreasonable to expect something like this to be potentially controversial. Saying that this is not bureaucratic so much as it is a series of checks and balances sounds like a distinction without a difference when your argument for keeping this article is entirely on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the article, its contents, and its topic. TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone done a BEFORE yet and I missed it? Jclemens (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this: yes. More importantly however, it is not required: if the rationale in the nomination is not a lack of notability, a search for sources to ascertain notability is not required per WP:BEFORE (the specific instructions are If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. and Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability). Likewise, using WP:AfD to discuss potential redirects is encouraged in some cases per WP:CONRED: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So no BEFORE has been done that even acknowledges my concerns. Not sure why you felt necessary to point out that it is expected but then say that it isn't, but the fact remains that no one seems to have addressed the overlap in RS coverage between the fictional and real disciplines besides me. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can explain to you again that searching for additional sources is only required if a nomination is based on a lack of notability and that this isn't the case here, but it's probably easier if you just read what I wrote previously. I reckon the reason nobody other than you has brought up the real-world discipline psychohistory is that it is a red herring. Your concern is about matters external to Wikipedia, namely the coverage in the sources, whereas the larger discussion is about matters internal to Wikipedia, namely the best way to cover the topic (specifically, WP:PAGEDECIDE). These questions are orthogonal to each other, which I'm sure you understand if you think about it for a moment. TompaDompa (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe#Psychohistory per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This is already described at Foundation universe and there isn't much sourced material to WP:PRESERVE. Editors can further merge if needed, but I agree that sources discuss this overall as part of the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe#Psychohistory per WP:ATD. — The Anome (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per other voters. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:18, 27 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 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. asilvering (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Warfare 2: Ghost

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

Tie-in promotional comic series that fails the general notability guidelines, with practically no sourcing outside of "look, this exists!" and trivial mentions in my WP:BEFORE searches. There is no critical reception, or significant coverage to speak of. Even if it was notable, I'm pretty sure that it fails NOPAGE as it's near entirely unsourced plot summary. I tried to redirect it to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 a while ago, but it got undone recently for being a "poor excuse" and an "unreasonable deletion". I suggest restoring that redirect. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Comics and animation. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom to the game's page. Appears to fail GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - IGN seems to be the only site that has reviewed the comic: [13], other sources show only announcements, lacking any meaningful analysis and so don't qualify as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 lacks coverage fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect IGN counts for something, but it's not enough by itself. This is best treated as a WP:NOPAGE, where the comic is described in context as a promotional tie-in with the game. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:58, 24 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. Consensus is that the provided sources do not meet our notability criteria for BLP. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laiba Khan

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

I draftified this BLP, but the creator Gopikakaa (talk · contribs) reverted my draftification and bypassed the AFC review. I asked on their talk page if this was a WP:UPE, but they haven’t responded. But their editing suggests it may be UPE, as they’re trying to create a BLP for a ROTM actress who clearly fails GNG and has only had minor roles in a few TV dramas, which means she doesn’t meet NACTOR either. The BLP relies on unreliable sources and this is Gopikakaa's only article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom fails NACTOR and GNG. Sources are also unreliable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibear47, As you mentioned above, sources are unreliable, you should clarify which source is unreliable and why? Because Saqib has not mentioned any source. Also, you need to see WP:ATA. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, Majority of the sources cited in the article are unreliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles (not minor) in notable productions. At least some of the coverage on the page is proof of that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, You often claim that the actor has significant roles, but you never provide evidence. Please do so in this case. Also, existence does not prove WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting the closing/relisting administrator/user to advise nom to avoid general ad hominem remarks that could be ill-perceived; any good faith contributor can generally check the roles through the articles about the productions any given actor plays in, and verify it is a lead/recurring/main cast role or not, and I !vote accordingly when such verifications are easily feasible with a little good will; in the present case, I indicate this clearly in my !vote. For example, at random, in Kaisi Teri Khudgarzi; https://www.thecelebrays.com/kaisi-teri-khudgarzi-drama-review/: notable production+significant role; Do Bol, https://thefridaytimes.com/19-Feb-2023/rapid-fire-with-laiba-khan; notable production+significant role; Tarap https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1158812; notable productions+significant role. And so on, and so forth. Please note that the sources are mentioned to verify the significance of the roles not to directly prove the notability of the actress. But claiming she only had minor roles is obviously completely inaccurate and the requirement of the applicable specific guideline are met imv. Thank you very much.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I apologize if my comment came across as an ad hominem remarks. Now first things first, the sources, except for The Friday Times, aren’t even RS. Second, I still don’t see the evidence that the subject has the significant role you’re claiming. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Significant roleS, not minor. Even if sources are so-so, they allow to check and verify that. Mera Dil Mera Dushman: notable production+ significant role https://www.thecelebrays.com/mera-dil-mera-dushman-drama-review/ (or https://dailyausaf.com/en/life-style/laiba-khan-clarifies-controversial-statement-against-rabeeca-khan/ or The Friday Times again) etc. Other users can !vote not to retain the page, if they wish, but not by arguing her roles in notable productions are not significant, imv. Also see: https://www.siasat.com/top-trending-pakistani-actress-to-say-goodbye-to-showbiz-soon-3103174/ or https://www.siasat.com/fastest-pakistani-drama-to-enter-prestigious-1-billion-views-club-3106324/ for example (but Kaffara has no page yet, on this WP, if I am not mistaken) Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep received significant coverage in country's reliable english newspapers and native language,

Easily passes WP:GNG through above sources and passes WP:NACTOR through major roles in Kaffara and Baylagam. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m stating for the record that GNG cannot be satisfied based on the coverage provided, as it is mostly trivial, interview based and often just name-checking. If the closing admin wants me to create an assessment table for the sources, I can do that, but it seems pointless given the keep votes arguing that the subject meets NACTOR. I still disagree with their reasoning, @Libraa2019, wrote passes WP:NACTOR through major roles in Kaffara and Baylagam but neither of these TV series has its own WP article, which indicates they are non-notable, but I don’t want to argue further, as that could be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked through the sources provided above and nothing can be used to establish notability. Interviews, mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and articles which are reporting what she said on social media do NOT count towards notability. Also, having a major role (I don't care if it was the leading role) does not guarantee notability. The guideline says "may" be notable, not "is" notable. Some of the sources in the list above are obvious as being non-reliable, but there are some that appear to be on their surface but are not. An example is this from the MinuteMirror. Bylined but the publication accepts mass contributor submissions which this appears to be by the byline of the submitter. No editorial oversight involved. The closest to establishing notability would be this, but she is listed in an article with others as someone on a list. If the person was notable, she would be worthy of notice and shown by significant coverage outside of paid media, churnalism, press releases, mentions, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that none of the cited coverage above is useful for notability, for the reasons already stated. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 30 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. With no support for deletion, and no consensus to merge, this will be kept. Feel free to start a merge proposal on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 19:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X637Z-43

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

A brief and non-notable hoax. Barely mentioned in any reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: I will do a more thorough look soon, but I think this meets GNG. Cremastra (u — c) 19:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: SigCov in Snopes, Politifact, and Seattle P-I. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snopes debunked it, so per se notable. No objection to covering it in (i.e. merging to) a list of hoaxes as an editorial decision, but it shouldn't be an AfD-enforced mandate. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps elaborate upon it shouldn't be an AfD-enforced mandate? TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's notable. Notable things can be merged editorially when it makes sense to do so, but there's no policy-based reason for an AfD discussion to compel a merge of a notable topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's WP:CONSENSUS. If there is consensus that it makes editorial sense to merge a notable topic, coming from AfD in no way makes it invalid. There is a case to be made that it is even more valid when it comes from AfD than when it comes from the article talk page, as the former is a higher-profile forum. Discussing WP:Alternatives to deletion is one of the functions of WP:AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. An article that doesn't meet a DEL#REASON is subject to speedy closure, because unless it's deletable, it's not an AfD topic. Thus, for a discussion of a merger to happen, that goes on the talk page. AfD is not Articles for Discussion, WP:PEREN#Rename AFD is that way. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. It is not subject to speedy closure if there are any arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection per WP:SKCRIT. The number of arguments that would support at least one of those three outcomes is vast. For one thing, even if many editors dislike rationales that amount to "the article is terrible", that is in fact a coherent argument for draftifying as "terrible" can reasonably be interpreted as "not ready for mainspace". For another, WP:DELREASON#14 is Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia, which is extremely broad, not least because interpretations of WP:NOT vary significantly. It may very well be the case that "this does not belong on Wikipedia" is a bad argument in a given case, but it is nevertheless an argument. We shouldn't focus on process to the detriment of actually determining the best course of action, because WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Whether or not you think discussing WP:Alternatives to deletion should be the purpose of AfD, it is nonetheless a function it serves—and this is a case in point. For that matter, we have an entire Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion that demonstrates this. TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SK Criterion 3 applies if no DEL#REASON does. Your hypothetical reading of WP:NOT is untenable, and I'm glad you acknowledge that, but bringing it up was a waste of time. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So for the record, WP:SKCRIT#1 is when there is an Absence of delete rationale, which is what I was referring to above. WP:SKCRIT#3 is when there is The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. The latter is a much, much stronger condition than simply "applies if no DEL#REASON does". For instance: consensus can determine that WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) does not apply in a particular case, but if the argument was made in good faith the burden is on anybody arguing for a WP:Speedy keep closure to demonstrate that the argument was "completely erroneous" (not just "not supported by consensus"). Conversely, consensus can determine that something does indeed violate WP:NOT even if there is no precedent whatsoever for that particular kind of thing being regarded as an instance of WP:NOT. That's not an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NOT, that's how new things come to fall under that heading—there has to be a first case (obviously, but it's worth stating outright anyway). What's more, both WP:DELREASON and WP:NOT are explicitly non-exhaustive. This is a feature, not a bug—it allows us a degree of flexibility in determining the best course of action as WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. For all these reasons, a good-faith invokation of WP:NOT basically means that WP:SKCRIT 1 and 3 simply do not apply (absent some underlying factual error in the reason WP:NOT is invoked) even if consensus ultimately determines that it was not an instance of WP:NOT. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of hoaxes. Not the greatest merge target but Planet X637Z-43 is literally two sentences. There is no need for a Stub when this information can be covered far more adequately at an article that covers these subjects in significantly greater depth. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that more likely be the most specific list, i.e. List of cannabis hoaxes? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the List of hoaxes as it is not ready for the mainspace due to a lack of sources to establish notability, insufficient information, and unclear content. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has sufficient sources that demonstrate notability, but could be expanded. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge For now, unless someone expands the article it's better off as part of the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. Two sentences isn't enough to establish notability, but this can easily be covered somewhere, per WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined by sources, not article length @Shooterwalker. But merging can still be supported if the article can't be expanded so much, or if it duplicates another article. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't clear, the sources don't say very much. Yes, that is reflected in the article length, which also fails WP:NOTDICT. Even with deletion as an option, we should work towards WP:ATD compromises like redirect or merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens et al.; notable enough. A merge might be considered but it is an editorial decision I'd prefer to see discussed separately.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a two-sentence stub with a good prospective merge location. There is no reason to have a separate merge discussion for this. -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 30 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. No prejudice against recreation if an editor finds compelling sources to use to do so in the future. asilvering (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasculaghju

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

No refs on the page for many years. There appears to be another archaeological site in Corsica called Vasculacciu which could be an alternative spelling, but I'm unable to confirm it is the same place, and therefore cannot add any of the sources which refer to it. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Maps can't find it under either name. DuckDuckGo fnds nothing for Vasculaghju other than a link to this Wikipedia article, but several entries for Vasculacciu. Apart from the u at the end Vasculacciu looks Italian, but Vasculaghju looks Corsican (and the final u looks Corsican in both). I suspect that both refer to the same place. Athel cb (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The map on p261 of this academic journal article New data and provenance of obsidian blocks from Middle Neolithic contexts on Corsica (western Mediterranean) puts Vasculacciu in south Corsica. The current coordinates in the article put Vasculaghju in north Corsica (of course that is not to say that those coordinates are correct!), but is interesting that both words occur in the source. This web page France - Coffres de Vasculacciu - maybe questionable reliability - has Vasculaghju as an alternative name for Vasculacciu, and the coordinates match that on the map in the first source. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:18, 30 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 Userify‎. There is clear consensus for deletion. However, I would be willing to undelete this and move it to userspace and expect I will be immediately asked to do so, so I'm going to shortcut that and move it directly. Given the fact that the coverage we have found is from 1970, I find it plausible that more exists that we have not yet found. asilvering (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heisner

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

Biography of a Christian pastor and martial arts practitioner. While he was without any doubt an very worthy person who did good things for his community, I do not think he meets any notability criteria, neither WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor WP:NATHLETE. The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable per WP:RS, or brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Martial arts, and New York. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable"

My response: How are ~60 newspaper articles not reliable? How are newspaper articles not secondary sources. Heisner did not own any of the newspapers. How is Robert Heisner's involvement in giving the key to the city of Niagara Falls, NY to Shihan Hironori Otsuka (founder of Wado Kai) not notable?

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the nomination rationale. The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. You may also have missed the part where I referred to the specific notability criteria that must be met. Being involved in giving the key to a city to a notable individual is not grounds for notability. (I will not bludgeon the discussion by responding to everything, but I thought the misunderstanding should be cleared up.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers."

My response: I don't misunderstand. ~60 newspaper articles and mentions is definitely notable. Newspapers are secondary and reliable sources (at least as I read the Wikipedia policies.)

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heisner was not just a martial arts practitioner. He developed a new style combining seven different martial arts in which he was black belt ranked and instructor certified. He also launched a Christian martial arts ministry. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he may have had a positive local impact, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner, failing to provide the significant, independent coverage required. Most of them are mentions of him doing a performance in a local area. One sentence per article is not what we are looking for. Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral WP:NPOV and reads more like a tribute than an encyclopedia entry. User:Bushido77, who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest WP:COI, further compromising the article’s neutrality and reliability. This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail, violating WP:UNDUE, and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability WP:RS. For these reasons, I believe this article should be deleted. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - the majority is NOT always right.

Absolutely! I admitted right from the beginning (as a Christian I am an honest person.) Even though I admitted it, I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was approved.

So, the majority will remove a valuable article from Wikipedia. The Heisner page has had more than 800 visitors in the last 30 days, which is more than many other martial artists pages on this platform. Bushido77 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner..."

My response: none of the newspapers are "affiliated with Heisner". He did not own or work for any of the newspapers.

You said "Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral..."

My response: I worked on that to the point that the article was approved. Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to continue working on the tone, rather than deleting the article?

You said "who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest "

My response: I honestly admitted that from the very onset of the article. I read the documents you cited and none of them forbade creating the article. It was encouraged against, but not forbidden. I am one of very few who knows the details of the founding of the karate system better than nearly all others. Someone should have told me I could not write the article, rather than let me waste 4 or 5 months working on it and getting past 5 or 6 rejections before it was finally accepted.

You said "This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail..."

My response: in this case, would the proper response be to rewrite the article rather than delete it?

You said "and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability"

My response there are very few primary sources in the article, and there are many secondary sources that validate the few primary sources.

All in all, deleting the article is the wrong course of action. Improving the article is the appropriate steps to take. Bushido77 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bushido77, We all appreciate the effort you’ve put into the article. Wikipedia’s standards focus on notability and reliable sourcing, not personal impact or page views. Yes, you disclosed your connection to Heisner. Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality WP:NPOV. We recommend that editors with close ties to a subject let others take the lead to maintain impartiality WP:COI. I believe the best course is to let this article go. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - " Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality..."

My response - I am not even suggesting that the article is completely neutral. I said I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was accepted.

You said - "I believe the best course is to let this article go"

My response - I completely disagree and your approach seems contradictory to Wikipedia editor guidelines. Somewhere I read (I have to find it) that the first response from editors should be to improve the article. But in this case the first response is to try to delete the article. Bushido77 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bushido77, honestly, this whole discussion feels like it’s veered off track. It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward. At the end of the day, the purpose here isn’t to win an argument—it’s to determine if the article belongs on Wikipedia based on clear policies, not personal feelings or effort spent.

We get it—you’ve worked hard on this, and that’s commendable. But dragging out this discussion with repetitive justifications isn’t going to change the reality that articles need to meet notability and sourcing standards, and this one just doesn’t. No one is out to get you, and this isn’t personal. It's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and every editor here is trying to do that in good faith.

If you’re serious about contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way, maybe it’s time to step back, look at the broader picture, and accept that not every subject fits. There’s no shame in that—what matters is learning from this process and applying it to future contributions. But we’re not going to make progress if this stays stuck in a loop of defensiveness. Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - "It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward"

My response - a productive path forward does not include deleting a good article, about a notable individual, about a notable individual who contributed heavily to the martial arts, his community, Christianity, and via himself and others he impacted, the world.

If you have a productive path forward I will listen. So far all I have heard are self-justifications to delete (not go forward with) the article.

____________

You said - "Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles"

My response - I am all for it. But civil is not deleting an article based on what I believe are biased conclusions. Give me a constructive path forward... not a path to the trash heap.

I am listening. Bushido77 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest Nswix (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest"

My response: where do Wikipedia rules forbid someone who knows the subject from writing an article? i wish someone would have told me that it was forbidden before I put 4 or 5 months of work into writing the article. Bushido77 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Deleting it appears to be a wrong response to some issues that can be corrected with rewrites and positive edits. Bushido77 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77, please remove the bold from one of your "keeps". You are not permitted to !vote twice. (I strongly recommend moving bold text from your discussion except for your single !vote, since it makes the discussion hard to follow. Italics can be used to express emphasis.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and have no idea how to edit or delete a comment. Is there a way? Bushido77 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 just press edit and change your text. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only see "edit source" no edit. I use the visual editor. :-(

I am really sorry that I tried Wikipedia. It seems very biased. Bushido77 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reviewed each of the very many sources, and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:RSSM and other outlets. There is very little evidence that Heisner was discussed with WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. However, three sources do appear to get close to WP:SIGCOV, although one is short and it and another seem to be based solely on an interview with Heisner. They are two articles in the Buffalo News (here, here) and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette. I am truly on the fence so I'd submit these for Bonadea, Ktkvtsh, Nswix and other editors' consideration as to whether they qualify toward WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Even if the outcome is ultimately "keep" or "no consensus," this article will still need to be WP:TNT'd because the vast majority of it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES "

My response: not possible. Heisner did not write those newspaper articles. He did not work for any of those papers.

You said "and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette"

My response: there are several (I count 18 links) articles in the Niagara Falls Gazette.

As for blowing it up and starting again, that is unlikely. I spent 4 or 5 months writing, correcting, making it more neutral, etc. It was rejected 5 or 6 times before it was finally accepted. It is unlikely that I will be spending more time in what seems to me to be a biased atmosphere.

Why did the other editors accept the article?

I am all for improving the article, but deleting it after it has been published and after over 1,000 page views in such a short time, seems to me to be short-sighted and a biased (non-neutral) decision. Bushido77 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please stop once and for all using bold text in the visual editor. It is disruptive formatting in a deletion discussion. The vast majority of the news stories you added are trivial mentions--a single quote from Heisner or a mention in a community section that he was going to teach a class at the YMCA. Often the mentions were his own ads, which yes, are primary sources, as are all the links to websites associated with him. There was only one Gazette article that got close to "significant coverage," which is what is required for a source to count toward a notability guideline. Finally, this is a rather counterproductive response to the only editor in this discussion thus far who has identified any sources that might support a "keep" decision. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - " Often the mentions were his own ads"

My response - Not true! His ads comprise three or four of the 60 newspapers and that was only to establish his schools under Park Jong-soo. One of those articles was put in the Toronto Yellow Pages by Master Park Jong-soo, not by Robert Heisner. Thus a secondary source, and one of the 12 original tae kwon do leaders.

I am not desiring to be counter-productive, but one of your comments was blow it up and start again. That is not the right approach. Bushido77 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's. I don't have any more to say on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - "Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's"

Copied from Wikipedia about primary sources:

"In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study."

My response - almost nothing in the Robert Heisner article is a primary source (the only exception that comes to mind is the book we wrote and a couple of advertisements he placed in local newspapers.)

Artifacts - possibly Master Park Jong Soo's 1970's Toronto Yellow Pages article

Nothing else appears to fall into the primary source category (that I can think of.) Bushido77 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see where your confusion comes from! It looks like you have been basing your understanding on the first couple of sentences in the Wikipedia article Primary source. Instead, you need to read and understand the Wikipedia policy page WP:PRIMARY. (It is also linked from the very top of the article you quoted from.) Wikipedia's definition isn't much different from the one used by historians, but the WP article doesn't mention all different kinds of primary sources in the introduction, so that's another reason to go straight to the policy page which is written with a different purpose in mind. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dclemens1971! I truly appreciate the work you did – I still don't think the sourcing is at all sufficient, though. As you say, one of the Buffalo News pieces is primary, so that's no good; the other one and the Niagara Falls Gazette are only slightly more substantial than all the trivial mentions in other papers. Added to the fact that both papers are hyper-local, I just can't see it. I'm not sure if I should go ahead and remove all the stuff that would have to be removed if the article were to be kept, just so we can get a better idea – as Ktkvtsh also pointed out above, there's tons of unencyclopedic detail in there. Am a little hesitant to put more time into an article I don't believe meets any notability criteria, though.

Bushido77, you say above that you are not sure how to remove the bold formatting from your comments. Would it be OK if I or some other participant went ahead and did that for you (except for one "keep")? --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The keep thing is fine by me.

According to the Wikipedia articles I have/am reading, the vast majority of this article is secondary sources. Yes, there are some primary sources, but they are not the majority. Bushido77 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - if four of us are in a room and I have $100 and the other three come to the consensus that I should give it to them... then they take it... that does not make the consensus right.

I believe this attempt to delete this article is biased and not neutral. Bushido77 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have removed all superfluous bold formatting from your posts. Each of us gets to make one single bolded "keep"/"delete" comment, and you have already been asked several times not to add emphasis by using bold formatting. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article that I read said that some bold was acceptable. What article says no bolding? Bushido77 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked more than once not to use bold for emphasis in this AfD discussion, and have been asked the same thing in other discussions. Please show your fellow editors the courtesy of adapting your preferred formatting style when we ask you to do so. There is another thing as well: you had bolded the word "delete" at least four times. In an AfD discussion, we all get to make one bolded "keep" or "delete" comment, to show what our preference is. I hope this makes it clear. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE according to WP:GNG standards. If nothing else, it could maybe be put into draftspace for further work. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said - "agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE "

My response - 60+ newspaper articles are not notable? How many articles are you in?

You offer a biased and skewed opinion.

I wish Wikipedia offered an unbiased mediation option. Bushido77 (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this work? Do I have to file a Dispute Resolution before you guys delete the article? Or does a dispute resolution need to be filed after the decision has been made? I don't want to miss my opportunity. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 No, you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That looks like the page to go to after the page has been deleted. Correct?

Is dispute resolution an option before the page has been deleted? I would prefer to avoid deletion if possible. Bushido77 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is not appropriate for an AfD which is itself a community discussion. It would be turned down if you tried. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any type of dispute resolution available in a case like this? Bushido77 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is the dispute resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said - "This whole discussion is the dispute resolution."

My response - It does not seem like a dispute resolution. It seems like a democratic vote to keep or destroy the article. Resolution implies resolving the problem, this appears to seek to destroy content (rather than fix it.)

That seems very unfair. A bunch of people band together against an article with:

four or five months of work
tons of research
60 + links to newspapers
~1,350+ page views in less than two months
Better and more complete content than many similar pages I have looked at (including one of Heisner's instructors)
a person who developed a new martial art style

But, if there is no other dispute resolution options, I guess that is that. Bushido77 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why the editors who approved the article and subsequently worked on the article are not involved in this discussion. Bushido77 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido admits to writing a book with Heisner."For example, I took the photo of his Wado-Kai certificate and all of them are copyrighted in the book that Mr. Heisner and myself wrote". He does say he sold it at cost to students.Doug Weller talk 06:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book. If there is any notability in here this hierography hides it under a pile of mundane. Someone without a coi may give it a try later but this needs to go. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Wikipedia had a policy to assume good faith? Your comment does not appear to assume good faith. You said "Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book."

As previously discussed with regards to the book, all of the photos on this page are in that book which Heisner and myself hold the copyrights to. So the book was added for two reasons. 1) It is part of Robert Heisner's legacy (which I have seen on other pages. 2) It validates the copyright owner ship of the photos. I added both the book itself and a link to the copyright office to the article in good faith.

Thanks for admitting that there may be notability in this article. In light of the possibility of being notable, I think deleting the article is the wrong decision. Fixing the article would be the correct approach. Bushido77 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will recuse myself from !voting delete, but as the original reviewer who declined the draft article, my original opinion on article quality, notability, and NPOV grounds still stands, even though article is in mainspace. ❤History Theorist❤ 05:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious, why did you not delete it originally? Bushido77 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion and keeping it as a draft are two different things. I am leaning toward draftification (the article is not published and easily available for the public to see) if you promise the community of editors not take this page back to the mainspace (where published articles live) until multiple experienced editors tell you that the article is suitable to be published and give you advice.

It is unlikely the article will ever be published because there are very few high-quality sources about Heisner but I think that in the far future, with the help of many editors, it could be published. I cannot promise that this article will not be deleted, but this could be a reasonable compromise if you stop moving this page back into the mainspace. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a newbie, I think I moved it back once, because someone told me that was a viable option. I would prefer that to throwing it in the trash. But how do we know the same thing won't happen again?

the article was moved to the mainspace by an editor (not me)
after an editor moved it to mainspace, another eidtor tagged to be deleted
what would prevent that from happening again and again?
would it be again possible that I and others continue to work on it for many more months.
One or more editors approve to move it to the mainspace.
And then one editor tags it again for deletion?

Would your recommendation possibly be repeating that cycle? Bushido77 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Draftify. There are several stories (primary sources) about the subject over many years in the local Western New York media. So he approaches notability, but isn’t obviously there. The problems are (1) there are zero secondary sources - as any librarian or legal scholar would define the term - and (2) it’s written very poorly, violating several major rules of The Elements of Style, almost to the point of deleting and starting over. If one of my students in my legal research and writing class at Bryant & Stratton College had written this, it would be covered in Red ink. I have reached out to an expert on this area, and need some time to research it. From a procedural standpoint, there are tendentious arguments to keep that, from my perspective, are weakening their position. If you don’t know the difference between primary and secondary sources, or how to write well, or how to argue in good faith, then perhaps you should not be editing an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I have read the primary and secondary source article two times fully and partially a third time, and honestly I don't see how most of the links would qualify as primary. (There are some primary references added for specific reasons, such as demonstrating copyright ownership.) I will read the primary/secondary sources again.

I will also review the elements of style page. Bushido77 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’ve tried to come up with an alternative to deletion, but the arguments to keep, keep getting worse. I reached out to former colleagues who are from the Niagara Falls area, and they have never heard of him. I tried to drop hints, but they were ignored. If you don’t understand what we are not, and you refuse to learn about basic research that a two-year college graduate would know, then I can’t fix it. I’ve saved over 120 articles over the years, and based on my experience and research, this is unsalvageable. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He awarded the key to the city to Hironori Otsuka via Mayor E Dent Lackey. I have no idea who you know in Niagara Falls, NY but many people knew him.

I thought one of the rules were to assume good faith - you said "basic research that a two-year college graduate would know"...that does not sound like an assumption of good faith to me. Bushido77 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe legislator Jesse Gooch would be a good person to ask (amongst many others.) Bushido77 (talk) 19:27, 27 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. Right now there's no consensus, and a week from now is the election. I recommend that those who prefer deletion simply ignore this for now; a month from now this discussion will probably look quite different. asilvering (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign state, municipal, sub-state, and local officials endorsements

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

It's perhaps because I am not an American, but what is the point of an endless list of Republican politicians who support the candidacy of the sole remaining Republican candidate for president? Isn't it completely trivial that the "Prosecutor of Macomb County", a Republican, supports Trump? Seems like excessive detail about an election which is very important and gets lots of attention (and articles), but where not every bit of completely predictable minutiae needs to be recorded for posterity on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep we just discussed split because the old article was far too long, now deleting the subpages would just revert it back to one mega-article Braganza (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or one could just not include this anywhere on Wikipedia of course. Fram (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think the americans would approve this, there are always very long endorsement pages Braganza (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What information do they actually convey? Hundreds of Republican officials endorse the Republican presidential candidate (or Democrats for Democrats of course), in what way is that informative? What would be lost by not having this page? Fram (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same with Democrats, its tradition Braganza (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also used to maintain infinite updates about cable and satellite lineups before we all realized it was stupid, promotional, and the providers themselves updated them better. 'American' Wikipedians can easily change consensus when we realize how WP:LAME it is to care about what infomercial networks DirecTV carries, just like the opinions of 'ward captain 534' on the election are wholly irrelevant. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to just "state and local officials endorsements". Municipal is considered local so I don't know why this is duplicative. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wouldn't mind renaming it Braganza (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid page split. The information is verifiable and would be appropriate on the main endorsement page. But, since the size of the endorsement page is high, a page split is appropriate. Name change would make sense too, but that is an editing decision. --Enos733 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Republicans supporting a Republican isn't notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: inconsequential subject. Not notable. Even if "tradition" (tradition where? Wikipedia? The American-verse internet?) is in favour of keeping this list, Wikipedia policy is not. Cremastra (u — c) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign state and territorial political endorsements is pretty much the same and it was included in List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements, until we agreed to split it and now suddenly its a problem and not notable Braganza (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Endlessly-expandable list that borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As for it being split from another article, just delete it all as per Fram. Delete the Democratic endorsement articles, too. Do we really need to archive the fact that a random Republican county commissioner endorses Trump? That a Democratic mayor of a ROTM suburb endorses Harris? Who cares? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a list is getting way too long, the first solution is never to split it off and then just double down to the finite alderperson and school board endorsement level; this is getting to "list of reruns carried by the rerun channel in 1979" or "List of toys Ryan's Toy Reviews liked" levels of inanity; endorsements should be limited to elected federal and state officeholders and whatever non-pink slime journalism newspapers still do endorsements, no further. The pictures of officials in the article also are a large breach of MOS:IRELEV and after awhile, they just blur together into nothing (Ray Garofalo isn't in office, why does he need an image here?). Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back into one list. We list the endorsements that news sources list, so it isn't INDISCRIMINATE, and newspapers don't cover the opinions of random aldermen. The topic of "endorsements of Donald Trump" meets LISTN, and we have a tradition of including these. Also, we have already had AFDs for these kinds of articles more than once in the past few months and they ended in an overwhelming Keep result. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Our tradition never included state assemblypersons, irrelevant and retired political figures, and true shockers like Giuliani being listed and are all recent additions. This is cruft for the sake of WP:POINTy cruft in a 'we have more than the other side' kind of way, which we're non-neutral and some basic guardrails need to be applied to articles like this (the criteria somehow allowed Richard Petty in this article because he had a county board seat decades ago!). Nate • (chatter) 00:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment where do these articles come from then Trump 2020 and Obama 2008 Braganza (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter has only had <3,400 views all time since 2018, the former <7,200, and none have ever topped over 100 views for a day. The only thing these articles prove is that a small group of political editors get all wound up about how important these pages are somehow, when they can't even get anywhere near the almost 150,000 views that America's lowest-rated cable news channel has received. This page is currently at 204 views all time; nothing would be lost if we just focused on endorsements the vast majority of the public actually listen to, from elected officials with interests in the results. A lot of light, but very little heat. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a completly different discussion, you claimed that we "never included state assemblypersons ect." which is wrong. A discussion about the general inclusion of sub-national politicians should be hold as a RfC like @QuicoleJR said and not the random deletion of an article by people who didn't even participate in the discussion about how to handle these very long articles, where a consensus was reached Braganza (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have so many of these articles, and a tradition of keeping them, that getting rid of these kinds of lists entirely would IMO require an RFC, since a mass AFD for every single list like this that we have would be way too large. Also, I agree that the list could probably be trimmed and merged, but I can't think of any way to do that other than going by the endorsements that reliable sources care about, since anything else would arguably be OR. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a tradition of keeping them, but going by the numbers above who is actually reading them? We're at WP:ITSUSEFUL, but to whom exactly outside of terminally online Twitter users who think the mayor of Clearwater is the one who tips the race either way? Going by the above it really feels like the efforts made by the editors on these articles should be going elsewhere by a mile. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm torn on this one, so I'm not going to !vote, but if we do decide to delete this article then we should absolutely not merge it back, as it makes the parent article way too large. In fact, I would suggest modifying the language of that page (and the counterpart pages for other US presidential candidates) to specify that it is only a list of endorsements from Federal officials and nationwide organizations. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements was already part of an AfD involving seven other articles under three months ago that closed as a SNOW Keep. and this is not the only standalone attempt to delete a single article of this type in the last three months. This article has been freshly split from List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements due to size issues, which seems to have led to this AfD. This list follows the guidelines at ENDORSE as managed by WikiProject Politics. All individuals listed are presumed to be NOTABLE, which meets LISTPEOPLE and the first bullet points of CSC: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.

Personally, I think it would be better to either have an RfC regarding endorsement lists or nominate every article like this at AfD instead of just one or two. Otherwise, there may arise a scenario where multiple consensuses form due to too many separate discussions.

Additionally, to address some comments, this list includes endorsements from Democrats along with Republicans. Yes, there are only a handful of Democrats that endorse Trump, but they exist. There are no Ward Captains listed or, more to the point, nothing with a similar theme so far as I see. Mayors are all notable as noted above and a quick check I did seem to have them be mayors of areas with a population of over 100,000 or more in the surrounding area, which does not seem to be a 'Run of the Mill' mayor. If this does get merged, I would suggest considering that it should go to the support section of the Trump 2024 campaign as that looks to be the main article for the lists. Finally, I do endorse removing the images from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the people on this list may be notable in their own right (there are some red links), I don't see how most of their endorsements are notable. I don't think a Republican in a strongly Republican state endorsing the Republican presidential candidate is important or going to sway anything. Many of the sources used on here are local news or, worse, Twitter, which is used for 19 people. Though, I agree that there should probably be an RfC on these things and what should and should not be included in them. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tito Ortiz endorsement...does anyone in WPP know how terrible MMA sourcing is and the edit wars in that section of the project (and we have multiple SEO blogs cited here that are otherwise disqualified if we put them in a BLP)?! And somehow this page has gone this long with no talk page added...these are elementary things you learn for your first article, not something like this. Again, we're talking about pages here the vast majority of readers avoid which have been proven by pageviews. We've killed walled-garden pages for much less egregious editing standards. Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"adding" talk page is not the first thing you do, with what even? what do you expect there to be?

people who have questions or maybe want to connect it to projects can create talk pages, but you don't do it for fun Braganza (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a reminder the article was created by splitting, so the article "has [not] gone this long" but was roughly of the size when i created it. I really don't understand your points here

To be clear i would support a RfC, i would personally not even mind to remove local/state politicians but this should be done properly and not by the deletion of one single instance where local/state politicians are listed. Braganza (talk) 09:52, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn‎. Clearly my BEFORE was off here. Thanks all. Star Mississippi 13:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Bank of America robbery

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

There are one or two stories in addition to the one cited, not counting multiple reprints of the same AP story. No evidence of lasting coverage, law or process changes. I don't see merit in a merger to BofA or One World Trade. I guess a redirect to List_of_bank_robbers_and_robberies#United_States would be fine, but doesn't seem particularly helpful. Star Mississippi 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Finance, and New York. Star Mississippi 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a couple pages of coverage on this/the person behind it in the book Notorious New Jersey, which makes me feel like this should be merged somewhere at worst. This did have somewhat of an affect on the crime family. Not sure if it's enough to sustain a full article, but I feel this information should go somewhere - maybe merge to the crime family. Haven't looked for more yet, though, it may pass given length of coverage, but I'll have to see PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given additional coverage found by Left guide. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NEVENT. There's far more than just contemporary reporting; secondary continued coverage of this event exists as follows: This book published in 2014 by a subsidiary of Casemate Publishers has at least two full pages discussing this event (287–288), possibly page 289 also but it's hidden from public preview. And there's this article published by Inside Edition in 2023, and this article published by WBLK in 2022. Also, several pages (approximately 32–41, possibly more) of this book published by Penguin Publishing Group in 2003. Left guide (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging prior participants: @PARAKANYAA and Star Mississippi: please re-consider in light of the aforementioned coverage. Left guide (talk) 09:33, 27 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 Dave Matthews Band. ✗plicit 13:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Lessard

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

Fails WP:NMUSICBIO, nearly all of the coverage that can be found in a WP:BEFORE search and on the article itself is articles about Dave Matthews Band, passing mentions, and primary interviews. Only standalone coverage is about a house fire, and that is insufficient as far as establishing independent notability. The article also contains swaths of unsourced information about the subject, a living person, so there are BLP issues at play here as well. No independent notability outside of the group, and should be redirected to Dave Matthews Band accordingly. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave Matthews Band. He has had a decades-long tenure with a famous band, but he simply does not have enough individual achievements outside the band to earn an article here. This article's personal info isn't notable, or very interesting for that matter, and mostly consists of fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As noted by the nomination, the sourcing in the article is almost non-existent, and two sections of the page are completely unsourced, in violation of WP:BLP. In theory, the bassist of one of the biggest bands of the past three decades should be able to be sourced. The story of his house fire is a classic WP:BLP1E situation. FWIW, I’ve seen the Dave Matthews Band perform live, once. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 26 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. Noting that the page previously deleted under this title was a different subject. ✗plicit 13:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Andrews

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

I searched extensively but couldn't find much information. Although I have released some songs, they haven't gained much attention. As a result, they don't meet Wikipedia's general criteria (WP:GNG)or the specific criteria for its music category (WP:ENT). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Three essential sections are totally unsourced. A search online reveals that there are dozens of similarly named people. I can’t fathom how, in 2024, someone would waste their time on writing this mess and posting on main space, as if they’ve never read another article on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 26 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 National academy. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Academies

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

no intro, details just a table UzbukUdash (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not about academics or educators.

The intention is that it pulls together an up to date and easy to navigate list of national academies such as those listed (poorly) on National Academy. With the intention that this list could be removed from National Academy once this list has been created.

If you're really unhappy. Can we at least move it to draft space so that I can add the other national academies? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should also pull together those listed on the academy of sciences page as well. Again cleaning up both of these pages and creating a single listed resource which both pages can link to. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete this sort-of shared name agglomeration. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National academy and Academy of sciences or draftify. I think this should be worked on in the main articles and split later when appropriate. I agree with cleaning them up but right now it's just duplicative and making this separate page first doesn't do that. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to national academy, an existing and far more complete article that provides a similar listing. Incidentally, I removed the listing of this AfD from "list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions" because that deletion sorting list is for biographies of professors. The nominated article is not a biography of a professor. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't currently have a strong opinion on merge, redirect, or draftify. There's also the National Academies category [27] to help in the goals here. Regardless of the outcome, I would also really appreciate this information being listed together somewhere as TheResilientEngineer added. I am currently working on updating scientists elected to the American NAS, but in the long term and I hope to move onto other academies after this. Cyanochic (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on engineer bios @Cyanochic which is why I started this list as the list in its current form in national academy is not good enough. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this list actually just belong on the national academy page then? I can go and edit that one so that it is actually useful and well formatted if that is the preference. However, I was sure I read somewhere about there being a preference for lists being separate pages, hence why I created a new page. Let me know and I can go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResilientEngineer (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the above comments, I believe that consensus says to Merge or Redirect (mentioned both as it is not closed yet), because the current article is not complete, and is also not cleaned up. After expansion on main article, it can be split. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National academy. Not redirect, because the table like format with Founding year and Specialism will be nice to have there, if proper sources and description is provided. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:00, 26 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 11:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slide Insurance

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate its notability, relying primarily on routine announcements Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Florida, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: The article needs to be significantly expanded to demonstrate notability. More reliable sources needed. SirBrahms (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded in 2021 the company is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON and it lacks WP:SIGCOV and sources are routine announcements.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a recently founded home insurer which has been acquiring other providers' books of business. Funding and acquisition announcements fall under WP:CORPTRIV and I am not seeing anything to demonstrate that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 11:06, 25 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 Energy in India. ✗plicit 13:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam

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

lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish its notability, relying primarily on routine or primary references. Additionally, the content may not warrant a standalone article, as it could be more appropriately covered within broader topics related to Gujarat's energy sector Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Energy in India or another appropriate target. I still can’t fathom why folks still post pages like this without any sources without even trying when I can find at least some primary sources. It’s a pity, because Indian energy policy and Indian energy law coverages are sparse to non-existent. I’m not going to make an effort to save this article, because I don’t like Censorship of Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Energy in India: You can consider it a supervote. I don’t want this AfD to run for another week. Not a single source is cited, and no SIGCOV sources were found during the search; hence, it fails NCORP. Creating a redirect is reasonable. GrabUp - Talk 11:48, 30 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 ARY Digital Network. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARY Zindagi

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

Outside of a few announcements of its launch, the only other sources I am finding are from ARY itself. Nothing that could be significant coverage, only verification that it exists. A good WP:ATD would be a redirect to ARY Digital Network. CNMall41 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom It's a rerun channel now, and the list-of should be added to this nom as it's one-sourced to [28] as PRIMARY. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ARY Digital Network: Agreed per nom. Will be more suited to be part of the main network page. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Gheus (talk) 08:36, 25 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 a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars and planets in fiction

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

We actually already had this discussion once before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction. This is a recreation of the list version of the article that was rejected at AfD in favour of covering the topic(s) in prose form. As such, it meets the spirit of WP:G4 even if not the letter (as the article itself technically wasn't deleted, just the entirety of the contents). The issues that led to the decision to scrap this version still apply, of course.

Keeping the article in its current state is a complete non-starter. It contains blatant WP:OR, improper use of primary sources, misrepresentations of sources, and outright WP:PLAGIARISM. As I said last time: It's not like we cannot have high-quality articles on topics like this—Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction are all WP:Featured articles—but the bulk of the nearly 400 kB here consists of a TV Tropes-style list with absolutely atrocious sourcing. The article has become a dumping ground for garbage "In popular culture" content to keep it out of the articles on the stars themselves. Another way of putting it is that the article consists of an indiscriminate collection of WP:RAWDATA (the 2008 essay WP:CARGO explains rather well how and why this is a problem for articles like this), and doesn't even source it properly. Something needs to be done, because the current state of affairs is not acceptable (the article has already correctly been tagged with several maintenance tags, and there are many more that could be added—{{In popular culture}}, {{Primary sources}}, and {{More citations needed}} come to mind).

So what are our options here? Well, ordinarily I would suggest fixing the article, but of course we already did that once and don't need to do it all over again. What's more, when we look at the relevant sources—as I did six months ago—we find that this isn't even a topic, but rather several distinct but related ones. Hence, the former stars and planetary systems in fiction article was split extrasolar planets in fiction and stars in fiction. This is to say that we cannot fix this article without fundamentally turning it into something different.

Someone might propose WP:DRAFTIFYing this to bring it up to acceptable standards outside of mainspace; I would note that such an attempt was made a few years ago before being abandoned (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Draft:List_of_planetary_systems_in_fiction). In other words, it has been tried before and didn't work. Moreover, moving this to draftspace would do nothing to resolve the fundamental flaws with the article that are inherent in its design, such as combining what is per the sources different topics. An entirely different approach would be needed to turn this into any kind of proper article, and it would in the end not be a different version of this one but an entirely different article altogether.

We could perhaps redirect this somewhere, but it does not really seem like a plausible search term, and there is no reason to do so in order to WP:PRESERVE any content—even if there were anything worth preserving, it can already be found in the edit history for extrasolar planets in fiction.

In summary, keeping this in its current state is not a viable option (as it wasn't six months ago), it could not be improved to an acceptable state without fundamentally turning it into something entirely different, the process of improving it by turning it into something entirely different has already been undertaken and does not need to be repeated, and we would not even lose anything by deleting the article as its contents remain in the article history from which it was copied.

Pinging the participants of the previous AfD: @Piotrus, Randy Kryn, QuicoleJR, Rorshacma, Clarityfiend, Shooterwalker, Zxcvbnm, Cakelot1, and Herostratus:. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Vegan416 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth noting that the article's creator left a message at this user's talk page notifying them about this discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article is kept because of a WP:HEY, recreating the previous problematic WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, with no noticeable improvement, doesn't seem like the best idea. We already have a WP:NAVIGATIONAL list of Extrasolar planets in the original article (Extrasolar planets in fiction#List), so nothing here will be lost a part from a bunch of WP:OR, that was already rightly done away with. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, WP:TNT absolutely applies here. The article has too much baggage and requires a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it does need trimming.

It was right to slice this material out of Extrasolar planets in fiction, so that could be an article on the subject. It should have been done by splitting the article, as the list has value on its own.

We can be pious about Wikipedia being for serious topics like this one, but this is a list of interest. We have, for good reason, articles on Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction etc: this is the same theme. It avoids endless articles like 'Alpha Centauri in fiction'.

There is relevance in noting that some star systems appear more often than others in science fiction: Alpha Ceti is famously used in Star Trek and may have inspired other writers to use it. Others flagged up by astronomers have as a result started appearing in fiction. If certain star systems pop up more frequently, that is of interest.

Trimming: when I recovered the list I consciously cut out the redlinks and the long footnotes with plot points and 'OR' observations. More of that can come out. References in fan fiction and online games are of little value in my opinion (but I may be a snob). Best guesses about where entirely fictional planets may be are best kept in an article on fictional planets. Where science fiction literature though chooses to use genuine stars as locations, it is worthy of note.

Hogweard (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is worthy of note IFF it is mentioned in independent sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Having written the entirety of the roughly 8,000-word-long Mars in fiction WP:Featured article, I agree that we have such an article for good reason, and I believe I am in a unique position to comment upon it: the good reason that we do have such an article, which you'll note is a prose article and not an indiscriminate list of WP:RAWDATA examples absent meaningful context, is that there are high-quality sources on that topic, such as Robert Crossley [Wikidata]'s book Imagining Mars: A Literary History (2011). I have done the legwork of looking for sources on the topic of extrasolar planets in fiction as well as stars in fiction, and it turns out that sources (at least the ones I've discovered—feel free to point out any important ones I may have missed) don't really cover the topic of real stars appearing as locations in fiction in the way that would be required for an article like this one to be valid.

It's interesting that Alpha Centauri in fiction was chosen as an example, because that's one of only two stars for which I've been able to find sources discussing its specific depiction in fiction. The other one is Tau Ceti in fiction, and both of those are covered (briefly) at Stars in fiction#Real stars. Other than that, sources don't appear to be that interested in whether authors name a real star or not (and if they do, which one) in their stories—indeed, a 2024 article in the Journal of Science Communication about planets in science fiction found an absence of influence of whether or not the planet setting is in a real star system on other worldbuilding characteristics. Based on that, I would have to say that (barring the previously-mentioned exceptions) the assertion that Where science fiction literature though chooses to use genuine stars as locations, it is worthy of note. is, well, wrong.

I agree that the list needs trimming. Of course, trimming needs to be done based on the sources, not our own opinions on what is important and not (in other words it doesn't really matter whether References in fan fiction and online games are of little value in my opinion, what matter is whether the relevant sources find them to be of value or not). I did actually do that back in late 2021 (it's a long story), and the result was that almost every single entry ended up being removed. When we follow the sources, as we always must, what we end up with bears little to no resemlance to the present mess—it turns into Stars in fiction and Extrasolar planets in fiction. There is no benefit to keeping this article around with the intention of improving (or perhaps more accurately, fixing) it when we already have the post-improvement version at a different title. TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in its current state desperately needs a TNT. Also, we already discussed this and decided against including this list. My opinions on this list's merits have not changed since that previous discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The original AFD resulted in a Keep only because it was completely rewritten and many initial Delete advocates, including my own, struck their initial recommendation because of WP:HEY. Recreating the original list not only seems like an attempt to circumvent that consensus, but means that all of the original arguments for deletion (and there are many of them) apply to it. Rorshacma (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Rorshacma, the result of the original discussion was "keep," so there's no reason to duplicate the information in list form. DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The past AFD already covered this. Nothing fundamental has changed to justify this article. Jontesta (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good arguments made above aside, this should just be a category, not an article. On a side note, I find it a bit odd how how a list of "planets of fiction" doesn't feature Tatooine, Giedi Prime, or Romulus. Cortador (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Userfy in the space of editor who wants it to be kept and/or consider transwiki to WP:TVTROPES. This is fun and useful - but sadly, not very encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list that was previously "deleted" (actually redirected) by a lot of reasons. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. Altho I'm a little confused... if it's just a content issue, can you not just roll it back to its stable version (which was written during/after the last AfD)? If the person edit wars, report him to the admin corps. The last AfD ended in "Keep, its OK now after WP:HEY", but the article was then deleted at some point? Cos this article was created just a few days ago. Then I am seeing an article Extrasolar planets in fiction. I'm not sure if these articles are overlapping some? It looks to me like they might be complementary? We're not running out of paper, why not have both, each fulfilling a different function?

Could somebody fill me in, otherwise its hard for me to decide well.

On the merits, well, there are all kinds of articles here. Most of them are merely descriptive (biographies, filmographies, etc) without any analysis, and will never be Good Articles, but that is fine, they are still worthwhile. And we have tons of list articles. I've written some, and of course the list is OR as I compiled it myself (if I hadn't, that would be plagiarism and copyvio). I'm just not seeing the claimed plagiarism, OR, improper use of primary sources (yes it is based on the primary source, but so are most of our "Plot" sections etc). Or any other claimed violations. Yeah it is very long. That just kind of proves that the subject is notable. If it was only three entries that would be cause to delete it maybe. I didn't find it all that hard to navigate, the menu is alphabetic... Somebody put a lot of work into it. I don't see the advantage of throwing it away.

Also, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA says we include the functions special-interest encyclopedias. I can certainly see this is a section in Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or whatever. So it is perfectly encyclopedic in my view. Herostratus (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To fill you in: The last AfD resulted in a consensus that Stars and planetary systems in fiction should be kept because it was rewritten. That rewrite involved scrapping the entirety of the list contents (i.e. the contents of the article under discussion here) and replacing them with properly-sourced prose. Follow-up discussion on the talk page resulted in the article being split in two: Extrasolar planets in fiction and Stars in fiction. So roll[ing] it back to its stable version (which was written during/after the last AfD) would mean duplicating those articles.

On the merits: For WP:PLAGIARISM, you can compare entries cited to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction to the cited entries there; there are several instances of blatant plagiarism. For WP:OR, we have among other things WP:ANALYSIS of the WP:PRIMARY sources, i.e. the works themselves, and analysis of trends in e.g. the "Proxima Centauri (Alpha Centauri C)" and "Ross catalog of stars" sections. For misuses of primary sources, see the previous comment about improperly analysing them, and additionally recall that we are supposed to not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

As for special-interest encyclopedias: The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction specifically does not have anything resembling this (there is not even an entry about planets outside of the Solar System; different aspects thereof are covered separately in various entries instead). Nor do any other science-fiction encyclopedias to my knowledge—The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1977) does not, The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (2001) does not, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (2005) does not, Don D'Ammassa's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (2005) does not, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia (2006) does not, Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia (2021) does not, and so on. I am certainly in favour of covering science-fiction topics as science-fiction encyclopedias do (and I think my track record amply demonstrates this point), but what we have here just isn't that. As I said in the last AfD: compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. The latter approach has resulted in several WP:Featured articles: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all this belongs on TV Tropes not here. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 20:51, 29 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 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Suvarna

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual, all coverage is just routine information about updates/events from poker news sites. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to read proper reliable sources that have provided him with the necessary biographical coverage. I don't see them right now. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Nagaland Post, APN News, and sportskeeda. To me they seems sufficient. PsychoticIncall (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of them reported only about the same event where he won the title. WP:GNG requires more than that. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His lone multimillion score is well-documented (for an additional two sources see 1 and 2) and does succeed WP:BLP1E. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing is abysmal, with blogs and fake news and the writing is even worse, filled with typos. I’m not even going to bother to tag this, because of Censorship of Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has already been brought to AfD twice in the two months since it was created, and this isn't a good sign at all. The article starts out as a BLP about a poker player, but then seems to WP:COATRACK into an article about two different poker tournaments. It can't and shouldn't be trying to do both those things. Perhaps the content about the tournaments could be added to Poker tournaments#Major tournaments or some other similar article, and the article could then be redirected to World Series of Poker multiple bracelet winners since Suvarna is mentioned there by name as a two-time bracelet winner in the "List of all time" section. If, at some point, Suvarna starts to receive the kind of significant coverage generally needed per WP:BIO, the redirect could always be changed back into an article. If the consensus turns out to be redirect, the content about Suvarna could be moved to the draft namespace (e.g. Draft:Santhosh Suvarna) so that the creator can continue to work on it, but there should be a condition attached: the creator submits it to AfC for review when they think its ready and doesn't move the page back to the mainspace themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Shankargb (talk) 19:38, 27 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!} 07:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Allen (bridge)

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

I can find no significant or independent coverage of this bridge player, which is demanded by WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The NYT source is not significant coverage, just a mention, and likewise the bridgewinners.com source. And the bulletin published by the American Contract Bridge League is not independent. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 2 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!} 06:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my own searching for additional sourcing. The sources currently in the article are not sufficient for GNG, particularly for a BLP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 16 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!} 05:44, 23 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 As They Sleep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor Records

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

redirect to As They Sleep would be an acceptable compromise. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC) After doing a preliminary WP:BEFORE search, I've come up with no lead on being able to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Graywalls (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentence worth's of information to As They Sleep, the band that runs the label. Mach61 03:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 23 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!} 02:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reji Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil

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

He has only won one notable award but I think more is needed to meet fails WP:JOURNALIST. A search for sources in google news under his full name, Reji Pulluthuruthiyil and Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil did not yield anything. so fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, India, and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The journalist has won a notable award, which is significant. However, more comprehensive coverage on their work and achievements is needed, as it is currently lacking. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is around WP:BLP1E, an award won by subject but fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not !voting, but I note that if the article is kept, the personal life section is unsourced and is potentially is a WP:BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 26 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 Heat (1995 film)#Filming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat diner scene

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

This entire article can be and is covered in the article for the film itself: Heat (1995 film). There is no encyclopedic value in spinning this off into it's own article. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 02:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Heat (1995 film) or keep. The reason for keep is per WP:NEXIST since this scene in the movie has been the main topic in the suitable amount of reliable references used in the article. The Film Creator (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to cite WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as further reasoning why the article can be kept. At the same time, I am neutral enough to agree per MOS:TRIVIA why some would choose to vote delete. Either way, I’m humble whatever the result is. The Film Creator (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current contents of the article do not motivate having a stand-alone article (as opposed to covering this as part of the Heat (1995 film) article) per WP:PAGEDECIDE. TompaDompa (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Heat (1995 film)#filming, where it is already mentioned. The scene needs the context. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 24 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 G11 speedy deleted‎. (non-admin closure) Procyon117 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S32 Technologies

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or credibly indicate its importance. No secondary sources. Speedy deletion nomination contested by page creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and re-add tag. Article is clearly promotional and is elegible for deletion under G11. @PARAKANYAA: Article creators almost always complain about someone adding CSD tags to their articles, and this doesn't mean that we shouldn't tag them for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris I was more confused by their response that by requesting deletion I was covering up for some sort of grand mass surveillance scheme. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoping the speedy deletion tag will work. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:04, 23 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. Looks like a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nedd Brockmann

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

Contested redirect to List of people who have run across Australia, which is what it was originally created as. Sourcing present and via BEFORE does not establish notability for Brockmann as a businessman or athlete so bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Australia. Star Mississippi 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Nedd has notability for the charity work he is doing, the following article lists a number of his accomplishments over the last 2 years. https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/its-just-pain-australian-cult-hero-nedd-brockmann-chases-1000mile-record-two-years-after-crosscountry-run/news-story/a2ab5b36dce447aa5fd3d3e42495fac0 He is currently attempting a 1000 Mile 10 day challenge that at the time of writing has raised over AU$800,000 https://www.neddsuncomfortablechallenge.com/donate?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZp9BUhSfSoAwtHkA614j4edKE2jy3QNvWiBomLMEbQrUp4AaCubWFUu_U_aem_cGZvq4c65wTGynCbFYeQfQ Campbell.jr.Smith (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Campbell.jr.Smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 18:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section about his charity runs and fundraising efforts. Stoowartjay (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Seeking more participation in this discussion and an evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google his name and you will realise he needs an article.. 210.84.50.88 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added nomination for NSW Young Australian of the Year Stoowartjay (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was a BEFORE done? This came up as the first hits [29], [30], with a video [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 16 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!} 01:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new sources added in the article, combined with the sources noted above, pretty much establishes notability of Brockmann and thus passes WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Noting for the record that there's another The Guardian source, another Canadian Running Magazine reference, and other sources that can be found in a BEFORE search. With this, Brockmann passes notability guidelines with flying colors. ~ Tails Wx 03:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was not able to find reviews for his books to support WP:NAUTHOR but I was able to find other sources supporting his world record run. Given a little time a few reviews might pop up. Newspaper.com wasn't able to pull anything about him but it doesn't always do a great job outside of the United States. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:33, 24 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!} 06:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Johnson (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any SIGCOV, and while prolific, doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Unsourced BLP. GraziePrego (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Video games, Advertising, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage and existing for 10 years as an unreferenced biographical article about a living person. I think Boleyn correctly nominated this article; the past AfD had minimal participation. I did a couple of Google searches and found scant support for notability: this interview, some self- or fan-created sources, Amazon, IMDB, etc. Bearian (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 16 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!} 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Letters to God where he has a significant role. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources to support a BLP. I am neutral about a redirect; that's probably his best known role but he's had a lot of others as well. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:34, 24 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison (author)

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

As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Technology, Internet, and Texas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much beyond articles he's penned. Seems notable, but I don't find any sourcing we can use. Article now is mostly sourced to author profiles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the publication of The Editors, Harrison satisfies #3 under creative professionals. I also just added two more sources, including an ABC affiliate WFAA and NBC Bay Area. 1A (radio program) is not a podcast, it's a radio program. - Wil540 art (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Editors hasn't even received a proper book review by a professional outlet so I hardly see how it passes the part of #3 that says such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The book was notably also deleted when taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel). I hardly see how being a guest on a radio or local television program is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't looked at it already, something from [32] might be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see more input before making up my mind. Bearian (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [33] might be considered a partial GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm fine with draftifying the article as an WP:ATD! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:ATD as it's possibly just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Continue adding coverage to the article as it is published, such as book reviews and author profiles. If no one updates for six months, it will get deleted. But if sufficient sources are added, it can get moved back into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Draftification since we have an editor willing to work on improving this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not find many articles beyond what the subject has written fails WP:GNG and does not meet #3 under WP:CREATIVE as it lacks multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm ok with !drafting the article as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 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!} 01:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Djot

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

This article is only sourced from primary sources and the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant secondary coverage in news articles, papers, or books. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 22:56, 29 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 Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (Las Vegas)#Brookfield ownership. Editors can Merge content from this article if they think it would be beneficial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice: Neon Dreams

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

Very limited coverage for an event that didn't even happen. Not exactly LASTING, is it? May not oppose a merger into The Voice (American TV series), but for an article that size I worry it may be undue to give it its own section, and I'm not sure where among the existing sections it would fit if anywhere. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Events, and Nevada. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per nom. Whatever is viable to do in this case. Noorullah (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (Las Vegas) § Brookfield ownership which has a brief mention of the event Mach61 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good merge target since it doesn't already mention the concert's cancellation. I can support that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:39, 23 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.