Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 27	October 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhonson Napoleon

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

BLP of a businessman lacking any clear claim of notability and apparently not a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Education, and Haiti. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, wasn't able to find any reliable-source-looking-things that covered the subject of the article that were not thinly veiled press releases Noah ^💬 00:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The dozen or so lines of text read like a brief resume rather than showing anything notable. There is limited coverage of this name, mostly name drops in articles about other things to be found online. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Mccapra -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 20:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a run of the mill business person without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. Read WP:MLL. If needed I can close this discussion. (I dont have deletion permissions however) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedes in Japan

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

Only secondary sources about Swedes in Japan are about two individuals and don't discuss the phenomenon of Swedes living in Japan more widely in depth. Does not meet WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Japan, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this could be possibly merged with Japan–Sweden relations. Cortador (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The chapter comprising pages 192–204 of this book is titled "Japan and Sweden: Two Countries Far Apart". Near the bottom of that book link is a "Notes" section consisting of 49 other references that may contribute to notability for this topic. If all else fails, I'd also support merging to Japan–Sweden relations. Left guide (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author of this article is a new editor who does not seem to be very familiar with deletion processes, but a reply to the nomination was posted here. Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the creator added five more references to the article after it was nominated as seen in this diff. Left guide (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An informative, now adequately sourced article.--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY; expansion and additional sourcing show a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tel Aviv truck attack

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

No information provided in the article besides from an infobox -Bloxzge 025 ツ — Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It happened right near the Glilot military base and Mossad headquarters and thirty injured is excessive by any attack especially in the standards of the modern world--Foetaldiner (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Very obviously notable. Just from a quick Google search, there is English coverage in Newsweek, ABC, and the NYPost, not to mention the Hebrew-language sources. Noah ^💬 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Than can you improve it? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:DINC? Killarnee (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a related list. I doubt this will pass NEVENT, there are a lot of highly similar instances related to I/P and a lot don't. This doesn't show any signs it will receive future sigcov, and the burst of news coverage when it happens doesn't help notability PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Noah Andre🚐 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the creator of this article is a prolific article creator who often makes these stub pages hours after an event happens. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later a ban on page creation will happen. It's just a matter of how many of these AfDs we want to go through first. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A body has been created. Borgenland (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every incident that leads to someone dying is not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By our standards, many attacks are notable. Also, I believe Borgenland meant a body of an article. Not a corpse... gidonb (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some, but not all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many does NOT equal all. No contradiction whatsoever. gidonb (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Keep for now, per WP:RAPID, without prejudice against renomination in maybe 2 or 3 months once a clearer picture of whether any secondary sources might come to exist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A major event with good coverage. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable incident due to the scale of casualties and significant global news coverage. Whizkin (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — There are bad arguments on both sides here. I will note that "No information provided in the article besides from an infobox" is not a proper rationale for deleting an article nor foreign to the nominator. This article is not inherently notable because thirty people were injured, either. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the number of injuries much larger? I found this claim: No information provided in the article besides from an infobox. Could you point us to the other claim? gidonb (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:News article, and a brief burst of news coverage does not count toward notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Even so, it is still a notable event and therefore it should have its own article. Chronicler12 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very easy recommendation to make. There is global coverage and SIGCOV in Israel galore. With 40 injured this will also receive sustained coverage. Even with far less injuries. For good and bad, Israeli media and research go back to such events. Time and again. Also Speedy keep because the nomination defies AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SOFIXIT and no valid reason to delete was brought forward. Supporting a keep and a speedy keep, for different reasons, in the very same opinion as the outcome would be identical. gidonb (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in 2024. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominently covered by the press; significant enough to deserve a page of its own IMO.Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:42, 31 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!} 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Khwaja

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

Tagged a long time a go as uncited. I found a source which describes him as a prince https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315165172-20/jochid-ulus-roman-hautala but I don’t know the subject so not sure if the article is true or whether he is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Mongolia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There seems to be some discussion of this person. [1], [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the biographical dates were incorrect (ruled 1344—1374, not 1320–1344), has received enough WP:SIGCOV in RS (see Cambridge History (2023), The Mongol World (2022), The Horde (2021)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 14 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!} 19:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Providing a second opportunity for the two keep !votes to be refuted (or corroborated by others).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it covers a key figure in Kazakh history who played an important role in resisting Russian expansion in the 19th century. His contributions provide valuable historical context on Kazakh resistance --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JiaoriballisseIf you understand the language perhaps you could add the cites from the Kazakh article with the trans-title parameter? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the 19th century. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Added the Edinburgh University Press source found by Oaktree b, but added an {{additional sources needed}} tag. As AirshipJungleman29 pointed out, sources conflict about when exactly he ruled, but his coinage suggests between 1366 to 1368 (at least). Meets WP:BASIC but requires care in updating, as there were many others with the same name. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies

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

A list of topics related to the Portuguese colonial empire, but only the parts in the East Indies; I see little use for this as a list for navigational purposes when there is already the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} and other methods of finding pages in this topic area. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Portugal. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a fork and is also unnecessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps WP:Readers get to know related topics of the Portuguese Empire in the East| Most readers are not WP:Users they won't know how to use the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolicamaca (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's a difference between "looks like a fork" and being a WP:FORK one must give evidence before falsely claiming that the list is a mirror or fork — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.198.135 (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:20, 28 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 Glen Campbell discography#Compilations and re-issues. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Campbell Plays 12 String Guitar

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

I couldn't find sources to add proving that it meets WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glen Campbell discography#Compilations and re-issues where the album is mentioned, since it fails WP:NALBUM. Left guide (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I was also unable to find in-depth sources or other evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 28 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} 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achilleas Dimitriades

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

BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate. He was eliminated after first round voting in which he got 8%. Fails WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Cyprus. Mccapra (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unsuccessful candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this demonstrates neither of those things at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. In addition, this appears to be a run of the mill lawyer who fails my standards, and is without significant coverage outside of one event. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC) P.S. I won’t oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 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 delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StormEngineC

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

Unreferenced since article's creation in 2012. Fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability.

Note: article creator's username and edit history indicates an undeclared WP:COI. Mika1h (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Google Books shows some results, but its in-text search didn't give results and a digital copy of the Pearson book result at a local library didn't have anything about it in it either. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions is all I can find - no evidence of actual notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forwardism

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

No sign that this neologism passes WP:NEO or for that matter WP:GNG. The word is used by BMW as a marketing tool and that's what a basic Google search finds (besides a bizarre fandom wiki). The Google books search is more interesting because it does get a few hits, but there's no indication that the word is used in the same sense in all of these contexts. There's certainly no source that studies it specifically as an ideology and no source that mentions "Advancementalism" as a synonym. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At most it is fit for a wiktionary entry, but not an article on wikipedia. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think it's appropriate for Wiktionary either, since the definition given here doesn't seem to be agreed upon by solid sources. Pichpich (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - nothing here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No consistent definition, no claim of notability Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 14:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day neologism. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 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 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!} 23:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tele Finland

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

No refs on the page and the claims don't appear to be easily WP:V. Could be redirected to Telia Company but Tele Finland doesn't appear to be mentioned at the target. JMWt (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's possible I'm missing Finnish sources, but I can't find anything about this company except for a few stray advertisements. No separable notability from Telia and not much importance as a redirect either, as the nominator says. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:18, 4 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 merge‎ to Lefki, Lasithi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kavaloi

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing refs to add which count towards notability but if be interested if anyone can suggest anything else JMWt (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lefki, Lasithi. The islets are mentioned as having archaeological significance in this book, Emilia Oddo and Konstantinos Chalikias, South by Southeast: The History and Archaeology of Southeast Crete from Myrtos to Kato Zakros (2022), p. 135. BD2412 T 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 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 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!} 23:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perati Bridge attack

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

No evidence of notability. An attack on a border post as part of a broader invasion is hardly notable, unless something extraordinary happened here or it received coverage for other reasons, which is not in evidence. The battle itself is covered in one sentence. Constantine ✍ 18:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Albania, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator. Unless there is anything notable in relation to this attack, which was part of a broader invasion, then the page should be deleted; see WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:MILNG § Events. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:45, 3 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 List of Beano comic strips. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard the Lion

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to suggest this character in a comic is notable. JMWt (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Beano comic strips where it is already included. Not finding much in the way of coverage on this relatively short-lived comic. The best reliable source I found so far was this book on the history of Beano, whose coverage of Richard the Lion is a single sentence to describe it as "not an enormous success". Since a suitable target already exists and Redirects are cheap, that seems like a viable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Beano comic strips per Rorshacma. I've taken the opportunity to add the found reference at that target. Daranios (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Daranios. There aren't enough sources here, but it can be covered at the target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable with zero sources Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Some reader will no doubt be looking for this, in context. Bearian (talk) 04:53, 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 delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix McBrearty

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I couldn't find any sigcov and the British Newspaper Archive has no matches for him. Dougal18 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject is (along with pretty much every darts player ever) covered in directory-style entries on mastercaller.com, clickondarts.com, and others, the only darts-related coverage I can find (which deals with the subject as the main topic) is this piece about the 2008 Ireland Open Classic Players Championship. In general news sources, I can find nothing in the larger newspapers from Northern Ireland (nothing in Belfast Telegraph, Newsletter, etc). And only this and similar passing mentions on BBC sources. As the subject appears to be from County Down, I looked in local/regional papers (to see if there were any material "local boy done good" type coverage). But could find nothing in the Mourne Observer, County Down Spectator, The Down Recorder, etc. In general, the only coverage that were returned in my various searches were trivial/passing mentions in the Tyrone Constitution, Irish Examiner, RTÉ, RTÉ Sport, etc. And the subject's name being mentioned, alongside a bunch of others, in a Guinness World Record attempt entry. To my mind, none of these results could really be considered SIGCOV. While I'd be happy to consider an WP:ATD-R, I can't personally conceive of an appropriate redirect target (Other than perhaps 2008 in darts - where the subject is described, in effect, as being "notable for being non-notable"....) Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 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 ‎ no consensus. There is some disagreement on how significant the sourcing is as it comes to notability, but I cannot see that either side is clearly in the wrong here. Overall, a consensus for deletion is lacking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McKenna

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigcov available - article about subject in Irish Examiner, Leinster Leader, op-ed about subject in Irish Independent (please note the author is not related to the subject in spite of their surname) and Balls.ie. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Examiner - routine coverage after a victory. /// Kildare Now - more about how he just happened to be the recipient of Paul Lim's nine darter than anything about the man himself. /// Irish Independent - passing mention in an article more concerned with the drinking culture in darts. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Examiner article actually interviews the subject about stuff further than just his victory and is beyond just the routine coverage of "subject won match". Leinster Leader (Kildare Now) is still sigcov beyond discussing Paul Lim's nine darter in two of the paragraphs. Irish Independent article remains an op-ed that heavily discusses McKenna. Furthermore, coverage is available in depth about McKenna in Dartsnews.com. As well as this, there was a full length article in the Sunday Tribune in 2010 about McKenna which absolutely meets SIGCOV - though the article itself has been taken down, it's been reuploaded by the journalist who wrote the piece here. With these six I think the case for meeting GNG is clear. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Examiner is blatantly routine coverage after a victory whereby he discusses his preparation for the next game. That's the entire article? /// Kildare Now is almost entirely about Lim's nine darter, with the exception of the final paragraph, where the "significant coverage" consists of a man saying he doesn't drink alcohol. /// Irish Independent is an article where we learn McKenna was, you guessed it, the man who stood behind Paul Lim as he hit the nine darter, we learn that he has a chest infection at the time of writing the article, and that he was once in a minibus that broke down near Drogheda. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three remain articles specifically about the subject - and yes, you might find whatever's mentioned in the op-ed boring, that doesn't really matter in terms of the fact there's been a national newspaper op-ed written with several paragraphs about him. But even taking your definition of WP:ROUTINE (which if it was just "McKenna won this match" and no further comment from or about subject I'd agree with, but it's not, so it's not) at its best and throwing out the three articles you disagree with, that still leaves three other full articles that provide significant coverage of McKenna. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article where 5 paragraphs out of 6 talk about Paul Lim's nine darter is mathematically not specifically about this bloke whatsoever. I never said anything was boring, I just literally described what the Independent article was? How a darts player prepares for his second game after winning his first game is very WP:ROUTINE, which is what that article in the Examiner. The Darts News article is five paragraphs summarising a 34 year career, one paragraph of which is about, yep, you guessed it, Paul Lim's nine-darter. The remaining paragraphs are very much WP:ROUTINE reporting of six matches in his 34 year career. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Irish Examiner source is routine pre-match hype with roughly a sentence of secondary coverage N. Kildare Now has about two sentences of secondary coverage, with the rest being coverage of Lim, primary, or quotes N. The Independent source is a first-person OpEd; per policy this is considered primary and therefore unusable for GNG. Balls.ie is almost entirely an interview, with the minimal secondary coverage being in the context of Lim's performance N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the British Newspaper Archive appears to have plenty of coverage of him, including mentions such as "Jack McKenna is a household name in Irish sport" and "Jack McKenna is the best darts player Ireland has ever produced". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are tabloid newspapers considered reliable sources? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several of those (e.g. randomly selected national Evening Herald and Sunday World) are of the newspaper size tabloid, not that they necessarily engage in tabloid journalism. Someone who has multiple sources attesting him as a national "household name" and "the best darts player" in the nation's history is clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except they do engage in tabloid journalism. Hence my comment. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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} 23:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Dewsbury

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - news coverage found seems mostly trivial in nature. For example, Darts Planet and Darts Nieuws are both specialist darts news sites but even these mentions are in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone. No coverage nor notable achievements. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:00, 31 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} 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Derry

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 31 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} 23:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Steyer

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 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 merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stilt-Man

AfDs for this article:

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

This got restored recently after its prior AfD last year. It was restored per new sourcing, but this sourcing is nowhere near significant enough to verify separate notability. I've discussed this on the talk page with the editor who revived the article, and I will transclude the source analysis I left there for simplicity's sake:

1. A Comicbook.com listicle which gives a single paragraph among a large number of other characters. The actual paraphrasing of the source in the article is nearly as long if not longer than the source's own, and the actual source itself is really only saying "He's a fan favorite" with little to no other additional commentary beyond that. This source's importance I feel is being blown out of proportion in the current article as it stands.

2. A Game Rant source which doesn't contribute to notability per Wikipedia:VALNET. While there's an ongoing discussion for this, until that discussion's come to a close, the current policy should still be adhered to. Game Rant is a low quality content farm a large bulk of the time, and cannot be considered a good indicator of subject notability.

3. A MovieWeb listicle, which, while alright, is still only one half-decent source in what is evidently a character with very little Wikipedia:SIGCOV or coverage independently focusing on the character. MovieWeb is additionally owned by Valnet, but I am admittedly unsure if it is also a content farm to the same degree Valnet usually is with sources like Game Rant or CBR, or if it actually publishes solid content consistently like some other valid Valnet sources like Collider and TheGamer.

The only other source here that was a notable addition is a book source, which is only used to verify plot information, and thus does not seem to contribute toward notability. I left this detailed summary to the reviver on the talk page of the article, and received no response. Given the controversial nature of another BLAR as a result, I've elected to take this back to AfD to settle this. There's really only about one source that seems to give any degree of notability, and it's small and seemingly the only one to exist. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be any degree of substantial improvement since the last AfD, and this should be redirected back to the list Stilt-Man had been redirected to previously. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BOZ, who revived the article, for input in this discussion. Additionally pinging @Industrial Insect, @Piotrus, @Rtkat3, and @BoomboxTestarossa, who participated in the previous AfD, for input. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources added, including "The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood" which I added, and additional sources added by others~~, otherwise restore merge as per last AFD~~. I will note that at the time of the first AFD, there were only 3 non-primary sources. BOZ (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ Could you please cite what that book is saying about Stilt-Man? This will help greatly with properly assessing the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entry is here. BOZ (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per the claims that @BOZ: made in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Plus, Stilt-Man was among the articles that @Industrial Insect: did a mass-AFD on outside of Abner Jenkins, Beetle, Boomerang, Burglar, Roderick Kingsley, and anyone else I can't recall right now. Plus, Lady Stilt-Man is her own character that is currently at List of Marvel Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect & Merge New Sources - The non-plot summary content is still very weak. The sources used in the "Reception" section, even if one were to discount the discussion on the usability of the Valnet sites, is pretty trivial, with the discussion of the character largely just being speculations of "maybe he will show up in this upcoming movie/show/game". The Supervillain Book is far and away the most significant coverage added, and even that has very little commentary outside of plot and publication history summaries. So overall, I do not believe that there is still enough coverage on the character to justify a full article separate from the extensive coverage of the character already at List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Some of the newly added sources, such as the aforementioned book, should be added to that section, though. Rorshacma (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VALNET doesn't say what the nom implies it says, and I assess that there are sufficient sources for a non-controversial topic to establish verifiability and notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." While "opinions presented in editorials or list entries that satisfy WP:SIGCOV may be used sparingly to augment reception" there is only an augmentation factor and only when stronger sourcing already exists. There's not even enough sourcing to satisfy Wikipedia:THREE given Valnet doesn't apply to notability in this case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources already cited the article demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG. McYeee (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The new sources are meh. Better than before, but this is still relatively low quality fancruft, with mostly mention in passing or short commentary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't believe the new sourcing is strong enough to warrant restoring the article (mostly being from Valnet content farms), although I'm not sure about the validity of the physical sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On account of the fact that any possible merge targets are fancruft, and this is decidedly non-notable, though I can accept merge for the sake of consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. It's always appreciated when editors try to add sources, but I mostly see WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and/or low quality Valnet sources. I am supporting a merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abílio Vieira

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

Similar case to Idelfonso da Silva. Brief career for Timor-Leste but with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches only yielded database sources like NFT, which do not meet notability requirements any more. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weak claim to notability and the sources are not enough to rectify that. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability provided and no sources to cope with this issue. 25lucky (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bertolomeu Verdial

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

Despite his cap for Timor-Leste, I can't find anything that might count towards WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Several players with 1 international cap have been deleted recently as a cap is no longer an exemption from GNG. My own WP:BEFORE found nothing other than database sources. Article creator is indefinitely blocked. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weak claim to notability and the sources are not enough to rectify that. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Varela

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

Despite his two appearances at international level, I can't find any evidence of a WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG pass. The best that I can find is Dantri, a mere squad listing. Several players with 1 or 2 caps for Timor-Leste have been deleted recently for the same reasons. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weak claim to notability and the sources are not enough to rectify that. Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Tavantius (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LLCC

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

Of this disambiguation, one is a red link, meaning only two topics (a part of a tropical cyclone and a community college) are covered by this. As Wikipedia's guidelines on disambiguation pages states that these types of articles need a minimum of three topics to exist, I believe it should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and United States of America. Tavantius (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never seen a disambiguation page for deletion. The abbreviation LLCC would still need to go to a primary topic with a hatnote noting the other valid option. In this case, redirect LLCC to Lincoln Land Community College with a hatnote listing LLCC redirects here and "low-level circulation center" as a part of a tropical cyclone. However, I see more options for LLCC available with search. – The Grid (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page has enough links. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw the links you added. In that case, I'll close it as the nominator... Tavantius (talk) 18:36, 28 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!} 23:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleˊ Kharis

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for either musicians or filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is minor film and music awards that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability pass in the absence of solidly reliable sourcing, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable ones -- YouTube, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, music metaverifying its own existence on Spotify or Apple Music, marketing content self-published by his own record label, his own social media accounts, etc. -- and the very few marginally (but not solidly) reliable sources are not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by themselves if the sourcing is 95 per cent garbage otherwise.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better references than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 28 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, South America, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:NARTIST. A search for additional references yielded no results. A review of the 58 citations for the article show:
- 6 are duplicate entries
- 8 are to WP:IMDB or non-review mentions on Rotten Tomatoes
- 15 are WP:PRIMARY links to their work on Spotify, Apple music, Boomplay, Distrokid or Youtube
- 6 are self-published by the subject[3][4][5][6][7][8]
- 6 are self-published and make no mention of the subject[9][10][11][12][13][14]
- 6 are primary sources/press releases lacking WP:SIGCOV.[15][16][17][18][19][20]
  
  That leaves:
- 2 podcast appearances ([21][22]) which are WP:PRIMARY and arguably fail WP:RS
- 1 primary and (likely self-authored) biography[23]
- 1 interview that seems to be with a local publication where subjects can self-nominate[24]
- 4 references that meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:SECONDARY, but may not meet WP:RS [25][26][27][28]

Vegantics (talk) 21:42, 28 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. WP:SNOWCLOSE before any more personal attacks happen and some editors start facing sanctions. There is a clear consensus that, at this time, this is a notable event, there is plenty of reliable sourcing and if the article is not neutral, that can be improved through careful editing.

No penalty on a return trip to AFD in a few months to consider a Redirect or Merge. But please do not turn around tomorrow and renominate this article because this is a decisive closure and another AFD would come to the same outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. We don't need a page for every rally held during an election season, only if they are particularly notable (i.e. his rally in Butler, PA). I don't see anything that makes this one specifically notable; sure, there's been plenty coverage on the bizzare racist remarks made at it but that happens every time. CoconutOctopus talk 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy that this article has been improved enough to keep; if coverage does fizzle out in future then we can relist but consensus is for Keep. I'd close myself but as there's a few Draftify votes I can't. CoconutOctopus talk 07:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Let’s wait until we get more information about the rally to put into the article.

Considering Tony Hinchecliffe’s comments could potentially cost Trump Pennsylvania, I think this rally will be looked back on as as a major event in the election.

I think the article should stay. ZachM097 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Wait until after the election concludes before re-assessing it's notability. Let's not rush to delete an article with plenty of coverage based on lack of WP:LASTING notability which may very well develop. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS are very good arguments, but I do not believe that this article is beyond saving. The rally is undoubtedly notable, and it won't be too soon for long. MultPod (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MultPod: Why is the rally notable, aside from WP:CRYSTAL predictions about its effect on the election outcome? Most of the talking at the rally wasn't even by Trump himself based on the article... Dan the Animator 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator Why would someone other than Trump making the most headlines make the rally less notable? MultPod (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — agreeing with others. This rally has a good chance of being retrospectively well-known for costing Trump the election with the Puerto Rico joke, if he loses narrowly. If the election is not particularly close, or Trump wins, there won't be a compelling narrative to be made about it, so post-election maybe it will not have lasting coverage. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, Politics, and New York. CoconutOctopus talk 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of post–2016 election Donald Trump rallies#2024 presidential campaign We already have an article for this, and as-is right now the article is just a list of names, which can easily be covered in the format of the rally article; it's also already mentioned in the main 2024 campaign article too. Nate • (chatter) 16:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to rallies list article, 2024 presidential campaign article, or some other target; the arguments above are largely WP:CRYSTAL/WP:OR. There's nothing inherently notable about this rally as of now that would justify an article. How's this rally any different/special from his other ones? Dan the Animator 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't live in the US, and I follow news, but these are not my elections, so news come when something happens. This rally has been very commented abroad, so I think that it seems important by now. It's true that we don't know what will happen in the future, but there's plenty of coverage because of its relevance, and the reminiscence of the 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, where this rally is also mentioned in the end. Theklan (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Theklan! :) I'm an American in the U.S. who also follows the news a bit and agree that this has been getting a lot of coverage. But so have many of his other rallies in the past. It's common for a controversial/headlining events to get a lot of news for a short amount of time but per the nom, WP:NOTNEWS & WP:TOOSOON, it really doesn't need its own article. If there's persistent coverage after the election about this rally, the content can be split off from List_of_post–2016_election_Donald_Trump_rallies#2024_presidential_campaign or some other better target. Dan the Animator 17:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep updating my vote... don't have time to give a full explanation about it at the moment but earlier today I had a conversation with an American political scientist with lots of familiarity with this election cycle and it appears this rally is notable because, using my own words/understanding, it is a "key inflection point in the election timeline and recent American political history". Dan the Animator 03:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of good sources and very notable. We didn't say the assassination attempt was "too soon". Great Mercian (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC) (Edited 17:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Great Mercian: how can an assassination attempt be too soon or too late? I don't see how the events are comparable... Dan the Animator 17:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are comparable in the fact that they are both notable. I agree with what @Theklan: said. It was reported on heavily both domestically and abroad, mainly for the racist things said during it. Instead of rushing to delete this article, I think we need to work on it so that it's presentable. Great Mercian (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great Mercian: Notable in the long term? If Trump wins, this rally really won't be reported on at all after the election. I can remember many shootings getting a lot of attention here in the states who've had their articles deleted. I still don't see what the issue is with merging to the rallies list article. Dan the Animator 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that this is a lot different from other rallies. Its comparable to the Republican national convention. It is directly comparable to the 1939 Madison Square Garden rally and need I remind you, a lot of racist stuff was said, particularly about Puerto Ricans and Latinos (the latter being a group particularly supportive of Trump). Furthermore and I know this is breaking WP:CRYSTAL but at this point I don't care, this could have implications towards Puerto Rican statehood and that's why I think this article should stay up. I don't see why you're so hell bent on deleting this article when all it needs is a little work.

P.S. can you send me some examples of those deleted shootings? If I have the time I'll try to restore them. Great Mercian (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator: Did you find any? Great Mercian (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per GeorgeMemulous and Great Mercian, too soon to say it's not notable. HappyWith (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think we should be able to get a close now. Seems like no way it’s gonna get deleted now. HappyWith (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is the best solution IMO if there are concerns about WP:TOOSOON IMO.

-1ctinus📝🗨 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and reassess notability later, this feels too soon for now. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying it is essentially the same as deleting it. Great Mercian (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
....no? -1ctinus📝🗨 22:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very significant rally, mountainous amount of coverage to go through. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to widespread coverage. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This rally had a high amount of media coverage and will be more developed over time. JE98 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This rally is getting more attention and media coverage for the rally itself than any other Trump rally this election season. I strongly believe people will be talking about this for a long time. It would be foolish to delete this article, especially now. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important rally with huge political blowback, covered heavier than most by the media. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This rally has gained substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Right now, the premise of the article follows Democratic Party rhetoric that seems to be false. Specifically, that the location of the rally was somehow an intentional callback to the 1939 rally, a sentiment spearheaded by Hillary Clinton before the rally even started, and thereby the content of the rally can be assumed to be racist. But nothing in coverage suggests that there was directly racist language at the rally. Comments by Tony Hinchcliffe are, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter, was merely crude humor, that it's problematic nature was the context of Donald Trump's poor handling of Puerto Rico. Furthermore, even the comedian noted that the crowd was not enjoying his comedy ("this is a groan-y little crowd tonight"), and surrounding information indicates that the sentiments were not representative of the rally's purpose. While other speakers did say problematic things about the value of IQ, none of it was related to race. Neither were comments about illegal immigrants being largely composed of criminals necessarily racist, as the false narrative that illegal immigrants are largely composed of criminals does not issue directly from race. Essentially, the notability of the article is based from in-direct or objectively false claims, even if they do come from sources that are normally credible. But clearly not credible in this case, as not one of the sources was capable of giving a single example of racist language at the rally. If their articles were Wikipedia articles, we'd have to stick some [be specific] and [clarify] tags around statements that we are here using as a source. The fact that nobody noticed this is worrying to me. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, with the important concession that the article must be restructured to draw greater attention to the historical paralells with Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies, which are the primary reason for the rally’s notability. The rally is notable for its open, unapologetic endorsement of Nazism and fascism by Trump and was regarded as such by virtually all mainstream commentators all of which used the words “Nazi” and “Fascist” in discussing the rally. Since this is precisely what makes the rally notable according to reliable sources, we must reorient the article to reflect the analogy to the 1939 nazi rally at MSG and Hitler’s nuremberg rallies, similar events which also have their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearless Speech (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no open endorsement of Nazism or fascism by Trump or any of the rally's speakers. That news articles used the word Nazi and Fascist is because of Hillary Clinton's drawing the parallel as a diminutive, not because there was a serious reason to draw the parallel. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This rally was more significant than Trump's other rallies and has strong parallels to the 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden. Additionally, this rally was unique in that it was not designed for campaigning but rather to activate Trump's base for after the election. MattEditor02 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has clearly received significant coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- + request for speedy keep and close based on a clear consensus below ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Receiving significant coverage in secondary sources; don't rush to deletion. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - WIKIPEDIA:NOTNEWS WIKIPEDIA:CRYSTAL The comments made at this rally were certainly horrendous and inexcusable, but this is not the first (or final) rally where Trump or his guest speakers have made notably bigoted comments which have been reported in the media. It is possible that this rally will continue to be discussed in the media and it may even have lasting impacts on the 2024 election (October Surprise perhaps), but until that can be definitively demonstrated or reported on, I don't think it merits having an article. Flangalanger (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to change my stance to Weak Keep, as the article has been rewritten to include more sources and now has actual meat to it. That said, the section about Tony Hinchcliffe's speech is a pretty significant chunk of the article and if coverage of this rally fizzles out in a day or two, then I think merging it into Hinchcliffe's article would be acceptable, too. Flangalanger (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - front page coverage on just about every major newspaper. Guettarda (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable event that must be preserved on the site. Deleting this article implies that it is not important to keep. Rager7 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep this was being hyped by his campaign and media as his final grand rally and message before the elections. Now that it flopped , it doesn't have to be scrubbed off wikipedia Nohorizonss (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sensation around this event is absurd. Comparing it to a Nazi rally is just another ill conceived "basket of deplorables" moment. One bombastic political rally of many, with many more to come. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize Basket of deplorables is a Good article on Wikipedia, yeah? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i've seen this guy's last account get banned Nohorizonss (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lets see more bombastic rallies or another coup attempt Nohorizonss (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete an article because you believe the coverage surrounding it to be overblown. If anything, that is a strong indictment for keeping the article. 80.1.141.100 (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The backlash to Hinchcliffe's "joke" alone is newsworthy enough to keep. It can be merged later if consensus were to support it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The parallels go way beyond just this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysnyder671 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close General consensus towards keep is forming. Article has been significantly improved in the hours since I was last here. Great Mercian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is certainly relevant at the moment. Whether or not it will remain relevant may decide whether it should remain as a permanent article. That can not be decided before the rally's actual impact on the election has been considered. I do have concerns about the statement that "top Trump advisors Mark Milley, John Kelly and Jim Mattis had recently described Trump in such terms." when the citation, and general knowledge, refer only to John Kelly making such a statement.
- [29] soibangla (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This was arguably one of the most notable political rallies in Donald Trump's political history. It is already showing to have a seismic impact to the 2024 United States presidential election. Regardless of the electoral outcome, this rally is going to live in infamy, akin to Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement in 2015.

Freeholdman12 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The move to remove the article when it is currently relevant appears to be politically motivated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:CA00:D600:5D56:5EA4:34E0:419D (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They wrote a letter recently Nohorizonss (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but way to assume bad faith! CoconutOctopus talk 07:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Agree that consensus towards keep has formed. Continuing to have the 'nominated for deletion' notice at the top of the page damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Thecolonpagesaretoocomplicated (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aspects of this event were highly controversial and it's all over the news right now. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is more than significant coverage at the rally and there is significant and notable controversy surrounding the event, especially when there's an election just a week away. Haruka Amaranth 11:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep as there's plenty of coverage and multiple news organizations are talking about it continuously. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This rally may have changed the course of the election. Bkatcher (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - solid article with lots of references. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep, Easy Close. This event has attracted sufficient coverage from reliable sources in order to be maintained and fulfill our notability guidelines; in addition to what has been already stated, see NY Times, Al Jazeera, Reuters, Time Magazine, and Axios. I do agree with the IP above's unsigned comment that there is a reasonable chance a political or non-neutral motivation is the primary movement to delete the article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF? As I've stated in a reply at the top I'm quite happy the article is sufficiently improved now and relevamt enough to close as keep. I avoid discussing my political views on Wikipedia as that's not why I'm here but I can guarantee you they're not one bit in favour of Trump. CoconutOctopus talk 14:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is so far away from being neutral right now. I'm not a Trump supporter either but as it stands this article just reads like an op-ed written by people who do not like Trump or Republicans. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really get neutral with Trump. Great Mercian (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, if that's your attitude then you should not be editing encyclopedia articles. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if I wasn't fearing for my life because of this election I wouldn't be here. Great Mercian (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page says that you live in England. If that's true - and again, with respect - I fail to see how you could have a genuinely comprehensive understanding of American politics. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we're bringing user pages into this? Fitting for someone who has his user page deleted for practically calling most Wikipedia contributors retards. I have been meaning to update my patchwork of a userpage that I've had since I was 12. Just out of curiosity I went through your contributions and I'm half convinced you're a Republican sleeper agent. Prior to yesterday your only contributions were to the two 737-MAX crashes that happened 5-6 years ago. It's almost as if this rally has activated you somehow. The more I look into it, I'm more convinced you're either not real or just a troll. If you're going to say that I have no "genuinely comprehensive understanding of American politics" just because I'm from a different country, then kindly get off Wikipedia since you're only being detrimental to this whole site. I have had enough of people like you, dragging out this conversation that should've been closed 12 hours ago. I swear if your only goal here is to defend Tony Hinchcliffe you might as well admit that you are him. Great Mercian (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow we went all the way to "you're a sleeper agent" in record time. What a shame. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hard conclusion to come to though, is it? I saw you bringing up my user page as invitation to scour yours. What, is that harassment now? If you're really not a sleeper agent or whatnot then prove it. You can see my contributions from 2017 and they're quite varied. Great Mercian (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see why people feel the need to relist this article after the election. As far as I recall we didn't immediately nominate the Republican National Convention for deletion a week after that ended. It'd be like nominating Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election or Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union or Withdrawal of the United States troops from Afghanistan (2020-2021) a week after they happened. It's absurd. Great Mercian (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep specifically because the response section with due regard the Hinchcliffe's "jokes" are the main brunt of significant coverage in this article. Everything else would have been draftified. Conyo14 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This rally appears to have WP:LASTING significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until enough time has passed that historians can analyze it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a "brief burst of news coverage" is insufficient to prove notability. See WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NEVENT, and Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trump has held somewhere between 450 and 500 rallies since 2015, and this particular rally has received far more in-depth coverage in reliable sources than the vast majority of the other rallies. The New York Times, for example, has published at least 25 articles about various aspects of this rally in recent days. Every reliable news source that covers US politics has covered this rally. Factors adding to its notability include the wide range of speakers including almost all of Trump's closest associates, the historic and symbolic location, the widespread outrage about the Puerto Rico and watermelon jokes, the rare fact that the Trump campaign distanced themselves from those jokes, and analysis suggesting that this particular rally may have genuine electoral impact. As for the opinion that we should wait until historians analyze the rally, we have policy language at WP: What Wikipedia is not that says the opposite: In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that many mainstream media outlets, all of whom happen to very obviously lean left, sometimes very far left, have heavily reported on a campaign rally of a political candidate they openly oppose, the week before the general election, does not make it more or less noteworthy. That is a dangerous assumption. As editors of an encyclopedia we should avoid appeals to authority. Argument from authority Rob Roilen (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, do you know of any sources from say, FOX News or The Telegraph? Great Mercian (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several stories from FOX and The Telegraph that portray the rally in a positive light. Perhaps you'd like to discuss them on the talk page? Rob Roilen (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page smacks of recentism. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. WP:RECENTISM is an essay. I quoted policy. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing my position. This page should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The response to Hinchecliffe’s comments give the rally more than enough notability to stand as an independent article as this will likely affect this year's election results amongst Hispanic voters. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 04:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above: WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NEVENT, and Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. No one will care in a week from now --FMSky (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great quote from that article - "Better to say nothing than to say something libelous." Rob Roilen (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - there is enough independent coverage right now, I think, to warrant this article. If needed, this can be revisited in the future when there is a more rounded view as to its significance. Gazamp (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ever-increasing RS-based siginificant coverage and WP:RAPID. As others have noted, this can be revisited in the future when it might be better determined whether or not this is a clear-cut WP:NEVENT pass. In the short term at least, this appears to be the case. Sal2100 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of post–2016 election Donald Trump rallies#2024 presidential campaign per MrSchimpf. If it has legs, it will eventually be a separate article again. Miniapolis 22:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and has SIGCOV. Andre🚐 03:04, 31 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 Marc Klasfeld. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Enter (upcoming film)

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

Could not find any news coverage of this film more recent than what is present in the article. I didn't even find any sources on the name change. Does not appear to be notable given current limited coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Bulgaria, and United States of America. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Marc Klasfeld : and add the main informations and sources about the production/project of the film; if the film is released later, the redirect can be reverted to expand the page into a proper article. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mushy Yank. It can always be restored once the film releases. On a side note, this is a movie I've always wanted to have made - the book is excellent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:19, 31 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 Turkish State Railways. If editors want to Merge any content, it is there in the page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TCDD Subdivision 3

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

I think there are too many articles about Turkish rail. This has been tagged for years as unsourced and the Turkish article is strangely cited. If readers might wish to know the regions we could link from Turkish State Railways to https://static.tcdd.gov.tr/webfiles/userfiles/files/sebekebildirimi/2025/ing/3219.pdf where they are shown in the lowest map Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It can be summed up in the TCDD article. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Merge and redirect. The nominator disliking the number of articles on a topic is not a valid reason for deletion, but the subject being at present better covered in the parent article is a reason for a merge. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit aghast at "I think there are too many articles about Turkish rail". We should welcome new articles that meet our policies and guidelines. With that said, I don't think these districts are notable topics for Wikipedia articles. There are zero sources in this article, so the best option is a redirect to Turkish State Railways. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I was making a general point rather than specific to this article I hope we and anyone else interested can continue the point you raise in your first sentence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am no fan of the sheer quantity of uncited articles out there, but for better or for worse we can't delete existing articles solely on not having linked sources (as opposed to not being notable which is a different determination). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not new, but I am not criticising the creator as presumably 14 years ago it was fine to create an uncited article Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 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. Whether to redirect and where to is up to editors; consensus about this is not clear here. Sandstein 21:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Luft

AfDs for this article:

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

Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. As evidenced in all the refs. TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two shows in the 60s (Boat passenger and "himself") that seem rather trivial, then nothing until the 2000's, seems rather non-notable. Otherwise, he's the kid of a famous couple/person. I don't really see why he gets an article. Could be briefly mentioned in the Judy Garland article about his efforts to "preserve her legacy" I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant impact to meet notability per WP:GNG Also Article is poorly written and hence fail what an encyclopedia is. Tesleemah (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability in his own right, per notability guidelines this is an WP:INVALIDBIO. --John B123 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sidney_Luft#Personal_life: mentioned there (his father); other possible target, the article about Garland (his mother). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in his own right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as was previously. Luft does not appear to have independent notability, almost entirely related to mother. No change since previous AFD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:38, 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 merge‎ to Takeoff!. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despoilers of the Golden Empire

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found which could be added which would count towards the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Some commentary at Galactic Journey, so that's not nothing. Although definitely not enough to support an article by itself. I'll see what I can find via the Library, but I'm not really expecting much. DS (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there isn't anything, should be merged into Takeoff!, where this story was later collected PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to to Takeoff! makes sense. It's fairly well known, but I wasn't able to find more than brief mentions in a google books search. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:02, 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 Okinawa Arena. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okinawa City Stadium

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

No refs on the page. Nothing much found which suggests notability outside of FC Ryukyu JMWt (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Japan. JMWt (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Does appear to be a historic venue, although its Japanese article is poor with sources. A quick Google search in Japanese about its history does not reveal much (although my Japanese comprehension is poor, so if anyone more fluent in it does show coverage I may change my opinion). Takipoint123 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There is also Okinawa Arena however this stadium doesn't appear to be mentioned at Okinawa (city), maybe a redirect and part merge to the city article? It sounds like a multi-use venue hence that redirect. It's possible the article could be cleaned up and sources found. If that's the case ping me. Govvy (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: From what I am seeing they are part of the same district in the city, the Koza sports park. Perhaps a short description of Koza Sports Park and Okinawa Arena + Okinawa City Stadium could be added to the Okinawa (city) article? Takipoint123 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and improve with Japanese sources. Two refs on corresponding article on JaWp for a start. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Jp article is not bad but sources are not great, so Redirect and merge to/with Okinawa City, as ATD. if I have time I might look for more. Thanks, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)2[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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Yafim Weinstein

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of notability. Common occurence. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no indication that Weinstein's death is specifically noticeable. Cortador (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several of the sources in this article are SIGCOV, so it definitely does not fail that. Sigcov being defined as it is in the guideline as content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Whether it passes WP:NEVENT is a different matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with PARAKANYAA that there is plenty of SIGCOV. I would like to see more lasting yet, according to nom, the problem is SIGCOV. No such problem. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Pharaoh of the Wizards's research, I feel better about LASTING. Kudos for identifying so many good sources, Pharaoh! I had seen MUCH MORE SIGCOV, in Hebrew, in the 2009–2016 range. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew Wikipedia is not even referenced. And going around putting text in uppercase is the typical fare from yourself. scope_creep^Talk 16:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few words in uppercase come really handy. Folks can quickly see where you put your emphasis. It's respectful to fellow-Wikipedians, who are also plowing through large amounts of information and are trying to make good sense of it. Now you say something about a lack of referencing on Hewiki. Can you put that comment on the talk page over there? It's a bit out of context here. I can make sure that the fine reference it has also is included here. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. gidonb (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and there is a book Somalia in Transition published in 2017 which mentions the subject briefly while the murder took place in 2009 this is the only source I could find towards WP:LASTING other articles are from 2009 ,2010.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

References

^ Lappin, Yaakov (30 November 2009). "Taxi driver found dead in cab in North". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
^ "Nazareth Imam Convicted of Inciting Terror". Israel National News. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
^ Shay, S. (2017). Somalia in Transition Since 2006. Taylor & Francis. p. 1-PT87. ISBN 978-1-351-48876-1. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
^ Azriel, Guy (28 June 2010). "7 Nazareth residents indicted for attacks against Jews, Christians". CNN. CNN. Archived from the original on 9 September 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2014.
^ Ashkenazi, Eli (15 July 2010). "Shin Bet Arrests Eight Israeli Arabs for Illicit Arms Trading". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 24 October 2024.

Comment The problem with the coverage is the WP:ROUTINE nature of a generic event, a taxi driver killed, that happens as a regular event all over the planet and has been happening with Jews and other folk for centuries. There is not a single thing makes this standout event as anything special, yet it has been elevated in a manner that doesn't fit. That is the reason I sent it for delete. We record the mundane, the mediocre and the generic on here and we don't know how to get rid of this trash. Here is one [30] in reverse. scope_creep^Talk 04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a lot of 403's and a couple of passing mention on this entirely routine report of murder. I cant seem to see them. I'll try in the morning again but it does seem complete mundane, mediocre and generic reporting. scope_creep^Talk 02:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable crime, happened over a decade ago, the sentencing happened, then nothing. I don't see any lasting coverage of the event, nothing terribly notable it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found lasting references in major outlets for more than five years, at least 2010 - 2016, an ISIS (or ISIS inspired) cell operating in Israel is far from usual. Whizkin (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it notable either. Another common occurence on a routine event. scope_creep^Talk 07:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Routine events do not get five straight years of coverage. If that's what we're calling routine, what isn't routine? I still am unsure if it fulfills NEVENT but WP:ROUTINE gives as examples "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award)" stories. Which this, a case where a terrorist cell with ties to an international terrorist group, in a country where terror cells are unusual, killed a man, resulting in several convictions of the terror group members and related people and had several years of coverage in mainstream newspapers, probably is not. More pressing issues appear to be depth of coverage, which I am unsure if this passes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 31 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. Sandstein 21:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in a City that does not Exist

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG). While it was produced at a notable film studio and involved some significant Soviet actors such as Nikolai Grinko and Valery Nosik playing main roles, it does not appear to be considered a significant part of their careers and thus does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:FILM.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." Therefore meets NFILM. Very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your words do not comply with the rules. WP:NINI Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the essay you are kindly directing me to offers no example that is similar to "my words". And the quotation marks in my !vote indicate that those are not "my" words. I am quoting a guideline. And this film is the feature debut of a very notable director; therefore I am most afraid the article does seem to meet that particular criterion of the guideline that I quoted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Анатолий Росдашин, I would tend to agree for older films that we'd lean more on the supplementary criteria. Was any search for offline sources completed? For example, I believe there might be some content about it in maybe around page 109 of Kostyukovich, Maria (15 May 2022). Детский сеанс. Долгая счастливая история белорусского игрового кино для детей [Children's Session: The Long Happy History of Belarusian Feature Films for Children]. Litres. ISBN 9785043783738., but I'm not able to verify exactly what at the moment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why should this article be deleted? It is not spam, it is in fact a notable Soviet picture - I do not see any reason why this should be removed from Wikipedia. Er nesto (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given that this, this and this exist, which I think are already enough for GNG, I am fairly certain that there are offline sources for this. Also probably passes NFIC 2 since Leonid Nechayev's obituaries all seem to mention this film. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:17, 2 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 merge‎ to History of the London Underground. Editors can also choose to Merge some content into Barbican tube station should they wish to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Pitts

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. (Harry Pitts (footballer) should be moved here.) Maybe he could be merged to History of the London Underground? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Terrorism, Transportation, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either History of the London Underground or Barbican tube station per nom. मल्ल (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first bomb murder on the London Underground would seem to be notable. Could be renamed to Aldersgate station bomb attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant information back into Barbican tube station and/or History of the London Underground. If someone believes an article could be made on the bombing, then make that article. But that is not the article we are discussing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per TaoT. A standalone article is not warranted, especially when the subject can be better contextualized in other articles. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. I looked in London: The Biography, and neither he nor the incident are mentioned in my copy; a Google book search found nothing relevant. Bearian (talk) 05:21, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Kilgore, Texas

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

Poorly conceived "timeline" article for a small city (pop. 13K) with no significant events being listed to justify the need for a "timeline". This is the type of thing we can spin out for communities where there's actual substance for the list to contain, but it isn't a thing that every town or city in the world automatically gets as a matter of course -- but apart from "Establishment of Kilgore College", referenced to Kilgore College's own self-published website about itself rather than a WP:GNG-worthy news article, this otherwise consists exclusively of random population updates with no other significant or properly sourced events listed.
The creator of this has also tried to arbitrarily create a full-on Kilgore-specific WikiProject without going through the proper processes for that (or justifying why a small city with a population of just 13,000 people would need its own full-on WikiProject in the first place), which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does suggest that they need some education in how Wikipedia actually works.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's substantive content to list, but we would need to see a lot more than just community population estimates. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into city article. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the history of this small town is voluminous or well-sourced enough to require a separate article. Absolutely everything in it (except the 1935 establishment of Kilgore College) is already in the Kilgore article, so there is nothing to merge except for a sentence about the establishment of the college. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed, would probably group History of Kilgore, Texas and Sports in Kilgore as well, as I think it could reasonably be included as part of the history and sports portions of the article. reppop^talk 22:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sourced and relevant content present in this article but not in History of Kilgore, Texas is the 1935 founding of Kilgore College. The History of Kilgore article covers the same topic and is only 2,000 words long, so it doesn't make sense to split off content into a separate "timeline" article (WP:WHENSPLIT). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough content for a timeline article. History page serves it just fine. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:19, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport, Indiana

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

Indications are that this was a railroad station and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one probably merits retention since it seems to have been a small but real town in years past, as noted in county maps and plat books from 1903,1904,1908, 1938, etc. There’s also a fair amount of newspaper coverage from the early 20th century, like this interesting tidbit from the Muncie Evening Press on 26 October 1900:
"Stockport, a little town six miles northwest of Muncie, which since yesterday has been located on the C., I. & E. road, has other claims to distinction than that being a railroad town. It is the home of William McKinley, cousin to the president, who bears the same name..."
The town seems to have had at least a Baptist church, a school, a general store (robbed repeatedly [31][32]), and a railway station[33], with other articles noting things like unrest over a local killing[34] and other lesser events. Whenever time permits I'd be happy to incorporate some of these pieces into the article. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the sourcing listings above on this nomination. — Maile (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per potential references above. What indications are referred to in the nomination? Has a Wikipedia:BEFORE been conducted? Djflem (talk) 16:49, 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 12:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilias El Ghamarti

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

Having done some research, it doesn't look like this person has had a notable football career. Claims like he has played for Kidderminster Harriers could not be verified; he played for a team that competed in the Dutch first level, but it was already March 2019 at that stage, by which time the club was in the fourth tier. On top of this, there is a real lack of significant coverage. C 679 11:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Morocco. C 679 11:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person fails to meet Wikipedia GNG. The sources are not of good quality (not reliable and lack significant coverage of the subject). --BoraVoro (talk) 17:05, 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 13:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kei Okawa

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

Playing 14 football matches in Singapore is a weak claim to notability. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent, reliable sources showing notability or significant achievements, and the content mainly focuses on basic personal information without broader impact--Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:38, 28 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 12:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pitts

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

Another WP:NACTOR fail. Lacking in significant, high-profile roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Advertising, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of keeping the article. Google seems to think he's noteworthy enough that you can toggle between "overview," "Movies" and "TV shows" when you search his name. Iowamutt (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hits aren't enough. See WP:LOTSOFGHITS. Find some substantial sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Squires, Chase (2006-03-28). "As an actor, Sarasota native Greg Pitts' claim to fame is a bit part in the cult film Office Space. But that could change if ABC's Sons & Daughters becomes a hit. Oh, that face" (pages 1 and 2). Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The name Greg Pitts might not mean much to most people. The 1992 University of South Florida grad hasn't reached the household-name level of stardom. But plenty of people know his face. A bit part in a quirky cult movie seven years ago cemented Pitts in pop culture as one of Hollywood's memorable louts. ... His next big chance—as a different kind of lout—is playing out now on television in ABC's offbeat comedy Sons & Daughters. Pitts, a 36-year-old Sarasota County native, plays Whitey, a dumb lug with a soft spot for his son. ... Pitts didn't set out to become an actor. He found the stage during his senior year in high school, but he went to USF as a business major. He made the decision to go pro during an accounting class, and after graduating in 1992 he joined a traveling comedy troupe, hoping for a break."
2. Salman, Josh (2014-02-24). "Actor, famous for "Office Space" scene, takes on real estate in Sarasota County". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-07-13. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  The article notes: "Greg Pitts is trying to make a new name for himself in Southwest Florida real estate. The actor — famous for an unforgettable scene in the cult comedy “Office Space” — recently moved back to his hometown of Venice to follow in the footsteps of his family and begin a second career as a Realtor. ... Pitts was born at Sarasota Memorial Hospital in 1970 — growing up in the Sorrento Shores community that his grandfather developed. His father runs a real estate business — which his brother later joined — in Osprey."
3. Cox, Billy (2006-11-13). "It's what fits, with Pitts. Venice High School grad, working Hollywood actor Gret Pitts makes his 'Oh face' as he awaits release of 'Idiocracy'". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  The article notes: "A member of the Venice High School Class of 1988 and a University of South Florida graduate, Greg Pitts has a minor "Idiocracy" role as a cameraman near the end of the film. "Office Space" aficionados will remember him for the "Oh face" lines he delivered with frat-house relish in Judge's wry take on corporate hell ... The USF drama major left for Tinseltown shortly after the Northridge earthquake fractured Southern California in 1994. Without so much as a let's-do-lunch contact in his wallet, Pitts found himself paying rent in a skanky Hollywood Boulevard neighborhood stalked by dopers, hookers and kung-fu brigades of Guardian Angels prowling for trouble with their red berets. In 2002, as his persistence began paying off with commercial work, Pitts created a Web site to post career updates for family and friends. The result is a sojourn of elation and despair, with pit stops at Verizon commercials and Allstate ads, and guest spots on "CSI" and "Grey's Anatomy" (Jerry O'Malley, George's brother). ... Pitts credits his parents, Lauden and Carolyn Pitts of Nokomis, for bolstering his fragile spirits during the lean, strange years. Dad actually encouraged him to move to Hollywood."
4. Deggans, Eric (2000-10-31). "The long road to "Normal, Ohio'". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  The article notes: "Pitts, who holds a 1992 theater degree from the University of South Florida, is the only actor besides Goodman to appear in both versions of the show and applauds the revamp."
5. Handelman, Jay (1998-03-24). "'Damon' Gives Actor His Break". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  The article notes: " Greg Pitts was sitting in an accounting class one day at the University of South Florida when he had one of those life-changing moments. ... After graduating from USF, Pitts moved to California where he studied with the Groundlings, the famed improvisational comedy troupe whose alumni include Paul Reubens (Pee-wee Herman). ... So Pitts started working a variety of jobs - House of Blues, production assistant, Blockbuster video - that gave him time to take classes and audition and also provided fodder for great stories."
6. Bolduc, Douglas A. (1998-03-21). "VHS grad makes sitcom debut Sunday". Venice Gondolier Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  The article notes: "Greg Pitts makes his television sitcom debut Sunday. The Venice High School graduate will share the small screen with television and movie stars Damon Wayans and David Alan Grier when the Fox Network premieres "Damon" at 8: 30 p.m. on WTVT Channel 13. ... Pitts earned his VHA diploma in 1988. He took acting classes as a senior, but the former class clown said he could never work up the courage to audition for a VHS production."
7. Ridge, Kari K. (1998-03-20). "USF grad channels energies toward TV role. Greg Pitts, a former class clown once stymied by stage fright, now appears in DAMON, a Fox sitcom that premieres Sunday". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Pitts, 28, grew up in the Osprey community of Sarasota, where the self-proclaimed class clown was always too scared to act in school plays. ... After graduating from Sarasota High School, he set out to earn a business degree from the University of South Florida. But he realized during his freshman year that business was not his life's ambition. ... Pitts took a role in a USF summer theater class performance of An Italian Straw Hat. ... After earning a theater degree in 1992, he acted in ..."
8. Huskey, Judy (2006-02-05). "Venice High earns an 'A' for literacy celebration". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
  The article notes: "Greg Pitts, son of Lauden and Carolyn Pitts of Nokomis, and a graduate of Venice High School and the University of South Florida's theatre program, will be in this enviable space today when promos runs for his new sitcom on ABC called "Sons and Daughters.""
9. Westfahl, Gary (2015). A Day in a Working Life: 300 Trades and Professions through History. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. ISBN 978-1-61069-402-5. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "If asked which is the most desirable profession-being a film actor, or being a real estate agent—almost everyone would opt for the glamorous Hollywood profession. Yet Greg Pitts (1970–) would beg to differ. After a career that included a memorable cameo in the film Office Space (1999) and a 2005 recurring role in the series Grey's Anatomy, Pitts decided to return to his home state of Florida and work alongside his brother and father as a real estate agent. With his acting experience, he should prove especially effective in persuading clients to purchase homes."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Greg Pitts to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am satisfied with the coverage identified and presented by Cunard and think that the subject meets the general requirements for notability so that deletion is not necessary in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG through sources listed above. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Firm consensus that the nomination was some kind of error. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propel (company)

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

limited notability, as it primarily covers product details and lacks significant independent sources establishing its importance beyond being a Gatorade product line. Additionally, the content largely overlaps with Gatorade's main article, offering minimal unique information that justifies a standalone entry. Moarnighar (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...The article is not great, but the nomination would appear to be a SK3 (in a downright bizarre way besides). Moarnighar, what in the world did you mean with the Gatorade comments? Did you mean to nominate a different article? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you writing your nomination rationales with a LLM? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nom was meant for Propel Water, as that is a Gatorade brand. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah OK, I suppose that's plausible. I'm still convinced it's a LLM hallucination because I find it hard to believe a human wouldn't pick that up, but speedy keep for this one, I'll see if I can get a response on their talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Propel has nothing to do with Gatorade. The deletion nomination is nonsensical. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first three sources on the page clearly meet the threshold of WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per invalid deletion rationale as the company does not have anything to do with Gatorade. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:00, 31 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 Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad#Motive power. With one exception, all here believe that this individual locomotive does not warrant a separate article. Sandstein 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65

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

Lacks notability. This internally contradictory or confusing article (e.g. was it donated in 1970, acquired in 1972, or donated in 1972?) has mainly passing mentions, with the only somewhat substantial source a photography book "Classic Locomotives: Steam and Deisel[SIC] Power in 700 Photographs". The actual source for the article is this unreliable site [35] with some text taken literally from it. An editor tried to redirect this page to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad#Motive power, which may be a good WP:ATD but needs to be decided here since it has been reversed. Fram (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad#Motive power: I agree with this nomination. From the publicly available sources it is clear that the subject is only mentioned in passing. Given Fram's description of what is contained in the Classic Locomotives book it leaves no doubt to me. The article should redicted as an WP:ATD. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally we have regarded preserved steam locos either in operational condition or with long operational careers in preservation (they do inevitably come and go as boiler tickets expire) to be notable. I see no reason to act otherwise in this case. Sourcing here is adequate, there are no "extraordinary claims" requiring extraordinary sources.

This Afd doesn't just seem to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's an WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT, see User talk:Trainsandotherthings#Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern 65. That comes down to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Australian_railroad_IP, a ban on an unpopular IP editor. This article was not created by an IP. If their allegation is that Insomniac187 (talk · contribs) is a banned sock, then I believe we have an SPI process for dealing with that. The correct response is to investigate that SPI first, not this 'round up the usual suspects' approach. We certainly don't blank existing articles without even discussing that through the article talk:, or by notifying involved editors.

Sourcing here mostly rests on a book by Brian Solomon (we should perhaps have an article on Brian Solomon) who is a very well known railway author and certainly WP:RS. I do not have that particular book, nor has the nominator. The other source is a good but very PRIMARY photo collection on the personal website of one of the long-term drivers of the railroad involved. This is far from a 'passing mention'. Yes, it's PRIMARY. But nor are we making the "extraordinary claims" here mentioned above. For the existence and basic history of a loco on a modern tourist railway, this is adequate sourcing. If US makers like H.K. Porter are anything like the UK makers, there are also plenty of erudite texts that would cover the design of this class and the building records of this batch of locos. If this were a Bagnall or a Stephenson loco, or a small industrial saddle tank here in South Wales, my own bookshelves would source that in moments – but if I can't do that for the US, surely there are other editors who can? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, please check again who started this AfD. I have nothing at all to do with your aspersions about IPs, socks, dislike of the creator, ... Once that is done, I will address your other misconceptions or misleading statements. Fram (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the article and the AfD, not personalising this into attacks on anyone who disagrees with it. Nor have I even mentioned you. Not everything on WP is about you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Please comment on the article and the AfD, not personalising this into attacks on anyone who disagrees with it." after your previous post about the nom and the nature of this AfD? Oh well, that goes with your claim about "the other source" being "far from a passing mention". That sources wasn't in the article so wasn't included in my comment about passing mentions; as you well know, as I brought this very source to your attention in the AfD nom, and you then added it to the article. It is a source by a WK&S volunteer, so has no influence on the notability question beneath this AfD. The question is not about verifiability, not about "extraordinary claims", but about WP:NOTABILITY. The Solomon book, where you so impersonally stated "I do not have that particular book, nor has the nominator"; er, it is available right here, at least for me I can access the text about the WK&S 65 without any problems. Fram (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are in the US. I am not. Google Books for me does not let me read the relevant pages of that book, I cannot know how much of it you can see. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously accusing me of wanting to delete articles solely based on their author? That is not my stance. I offered my opinion on the subject's notability, and that had zero to do with who authored it. I don't care if Vladimir Putin personally wrote the article, I'm going to evaluate it based on how it meets or does not meet GNG. Based on my interpretation of our policies and guidelines, it does not meet GNG. Please strike your aspersion directed against me. I am also very disappointed you thought it appropriate to link a discussion on my talk page and implicitly make accusations against me without even having the decency to notify me. I would much like if you took your own advice: "Please comment on the article and the AfD, not personalising this into attacks on anyone who disagrees with it."

As for the sourcing, since you linked my talk, you should have seen that Solomon's book dedicates two sentences to the locomotive. That's not significant coverage. I never asserted he was not a reliable source, in fact I have used his works in a number of my articles. I asserted the coverage does not meet WP:SIGCOV. I am disappointed that you ignore that. I expected better from an editor of your tenure than this.

Anyways, redirect to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, get off your high horse. You have already AfD'ed this article creator's other articles at Union Pacific 9000 and Dieselmotive Company, Inc.. I am not required to notify you and if you're busy discussing article deletion with another editor there are tells in the writing style that match the IP's editing style (and not through either AfD or even the article's talk: page) then I expect you to be aware of our regular practices that you'll at least notice an AfD page on it.

I don't even particularly disagree with you. If think this IP is socking, then file an SPI and do it properly. But we don't work by suspicion, and we have an AfD process, not just a secret handshake somewhere away from scrutiny. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd them because they weren't notable. I found these articles in New Page Patrol, where I focus on transportation related articles. A scan of my contributions would make this quite obvious. I did not reference any sort of claims of socking (or anything to do with the article creator) in either of those AfDs, because I actually agree that doing so would be inappropriate. I was asked for my personal opinion and I gave it. What I did not do was advocate for targeting this article solely based on who wrote it. My arguments were based on notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless an editor can provide references to actual genuine independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this particular locomotive. Speculating about the existence of plenty of erudite texts is of no value to this discussion, and even if such hypothetical texts existed and covered the design of this class and the building records of this batch of locos, they would be of no value in establishing the notability of this specific locomotive as opposed to a class of locomotives. Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where? The completely unsourced article it was pointed to previously? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good point. Delete then.~~ Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have added three references to Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad, so it is now an acceptable redirect target. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I was considering if I should change my !vote to delete also. Now a redirect is clear. TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - there aren't sufficient independent, published sources to justify a standalone article, but there is useful sourced material that should be merged into Wanamaker, Kempton and Southern Railroad, and then redirect this link to that article. 00:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 Hum TV#Romance. The IP contribution makes no sense, and the one by EternalSun1 is a showcase of WP:ATA. Sandstein 21:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabbat Reza Reza

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

I draftified this article because I felt it didn't meet the GNG. However, the creator EternalSun1 (talk · contribs) moved it back to the main NS to avoid an AFC review, leaving me no choice but to take it to AfD. I believe it fails to meet GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum_TV#Romance: a standard ATD when coverage about production for verification exists and the series has a notable cast; not opposed to Keep for that matter, if other users judge it is sufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum_TV#Romance: I don't think that this TV series is any special from all other series produced by Hum TV. Storyline/Cast is also not notable in my opinion. Only 6-7 episodes have been aired till now. Notability can be decided when the series finishes. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are many television shows that have similar storylines and aren't "special" from other series, which are still on Wikipedia. This isn't a fair reasoning for deletion since people who do like this series, and want to get information about it, won't have a space where they can check all of the details. Sabreen Hisbani is the notable actress in the show, she is one of Pakistan's biggest actresses working on shows like "Laa", "Parchayee", "Aunn Zara", "Mohabbat Tumse Nafrat Hai" which have all been very succesful. Either way, cast notability shouldn't matter if the show is coming from a large Pakistani network, with proper articles, details etc. If there are any details to be added, please contribute to the article. Add sources aswell. The show itself was announced less than a month ago (teasers, name, full cast was announced on October 7, 2024) so more articles should be rolling out soon. I have also added an IMDb for the show in external links and the official Hum TV website, which states alot of the details. Thank you for the contribution EternalSun1 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain : I suggest to retain the article as it is passing the references and mentions and it is fully composed with the WP:MOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.119.195 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 182.183.119.195, passing the references and mentions How? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:35, 31 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 now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who use their middle names as their first names

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

Lots of people in all walks of life go by their some form of their middle name. This is not an uncommon or poorly understood phenomenon. The sources by and large may verify that the listed person uses their middle name, but that isn't the focus of the coverage, because it simply is not really unusual or noteworthy to do so. There's simply no depth to this, it feels more like random trivia than something one would find in an encyclopedia. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Language. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is the second AfD for this article. The first was when the article had a different title, and can be found at WP:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names. TompaDompa (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I got a case of banner blindness because I legit did not see that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore former title of article and keep, as the move was never discussed and made the article's title vague and unclear so that one editor could expand the article's purview without consensus. One editor should not be changing the article to their own specifications so that it becomes another vague list article, as Isaidnoway did here. The other suggestion is to restrict it solely to actors and title as such. Nate • (chatter) 18:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other suggestion is to restrict it solely to actors and title as such. May I ask: why? Why does restricting it in this manner make the list more encyclopedic? Also, it seems like what you are proposing is already an article at List of stage names. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a mind bogglingly banal list of trivia that doesn't appear to notable enough for its own article, let alone a list of examples. What little encyclopedic information there is to say at the topic can be done at Middle name § Middle name as primary forename, and more or less already is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was an (edit conflict) with the above restore/keep, which now that I've read, doesn't sway me in the slightest. Restricting to "celebrities" is probably even more vague, as what constitutes a "celebrity" is generally subjective. It also doesn't make the topic any more notable. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:NLIST because of coverage by the Independent, Deseret News, and (if the article is to be belived) this^[1] book. Some other sources in the references of the article may also be useful in demonstrating notability. McYeee (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Voluntary devil's advocate, but based on the sources shared a similar argument could be made for List of films with interesting titles: The Independent, Deseret News. Would an article built on these two sources pass WP:NLIST in your opinion? Shazback (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming for sake of argument that those are the only two relevant sources that exist, such an article should be deleted. I don't think it would would pass WP:GNG because those sources don't actually establish that those films have interesting titles, just that those two publications consider them notable and there are no sources showing notability for List of films with titles considered interesting by news sources. You might be able to convince me that these sources actually do establish that the list is notable, despite not reliably establishing a single entry, but in that case, the list should be deleted for being completely unverifiable. McYeee (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per McYeee's sources. I also found [36] as well as [37] to help out. It's worth noting that this and List of stage names are similar, perhaps I'll add this article in the "See also" section. Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the above sources are good for establishing notability. You can find low-quality listicle churn on practically anything. Finding a couple listicles about something vaguely similar does not grant a license to just compile our own goddamn list of every goddamn person who goes by a goddamn middle name. This is bottom-of-the-barrel garbage, even by Wikipedia list standards, which is already pretty abyssal. Just once, can't common sense (and WP:NOT) win out here? Just once, can we not parade about a couple stupid listicles and go "omg NLIST NLIST, haha keep"? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very poor faith comment that I suggest you either scrap or rewrite. Conyo14 (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might not like my tone, which belies my frustration, but my faith is pure. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is WP:POINT. – The Grid (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article should be reframed and possibly renamed if kept. Seems like the whole discussion is taking for granted that the use of one's middle name only seems novel if you are American or British *and* believe that using one's first given name is "conventional" or "preferred". The introductory section seems forced and a bit "off". Cielquiparle (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my nomination is based on the idea that this isn't novel or uncommon at all. I imagine pretty much everyone knows at least one person who goes by a name other than their full given first name. This is about as encyclopedic and useful as a list of people who are named Robert or Theodore or Andrew but go by Bob, Ted, or Andy. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those topics are as notable as this one, I would expect there to exist reliable sources listing such people. Are you aware of any? If notability isn't your reason for claiming the list is not encyclopedic, what is? I think that, per WP:USEFUL, uselessness is an argument to avoid in AfDs. McYeee (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources that you linked above, they are not WP:SIGCOV, they are basically "this is a thing that exists, here is a list of people who have done it" in other words, no better than the article itself. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an example of WP:SIGCOV for the purposes of WP:NLIST? How should I square your view here with WP:NLIST which says that "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? McYeee (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the discussion part that is lacking. Those articles are a paragraph or two of reporting, then are just lists like out article. There's no depth to the coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Symons, Mitchell (2007). "Famous People Who Use Their Middle Names As First Names". This, That And The Other. Transworld Publishers. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-552-15647-9. Archived from the original on June 22, 2024. Retrieved June 22, 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, as this does appear to be an anthroponymically significant phenomenon. BD2412 T 00:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, WP:SALAT suggests A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out. By that criteria, I am not certain anyone would seek such a list out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list with no point, and no sustainable future. As the blurb at the beginning of the list points out, in some cultures it is absolutely normal for the middle name to be used, not the first, so this list would have to include everyone born into one of those cultures. Meanwhile a prodigious number of people choose to use their middle name, so the list is doomed to grow to unmanageable proportions. We already deal with this by listing notable people by the name to which they are referred in sources (which is generally the name they've chosen to use). In the rare cases where a reader might go looking for someone by the "wrong" name, we can have redirects. There is no navigational value in having a list of notable people (or celebrities) who use their middle name. There is no cultural or educational value in the table. And as a side issue, since the table currently includes a column "full name/birth name" we have the issue that if someone has changed gender, we run the risk of either implying their birth-name is something that it wasn't, or dead-naming them, which we've agreed not to do, so by policy this column must either be renamed or removed. And on top of that, the list in its current form is somehow stuck between being more than it should be for a navigational list, and unconvincingly referenced as a stand-alone list (in that although it has copious references for the actual names, it has nothing much to justify that using a middle name is an encyclopedic topic). Elemimele (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete First, the actual title should be people who go by their middle names. But second, as the length of the list shows, this is a meaninglessly common phenomenon, particularly among celebrities, who may have more reasons than the rest of us do to avoid going by their actual first names in public. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate information WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is very common and quite unremarkable for someone to go by their middle name. None of these people are connected to each other in any way; this is not of navigational use for a meaningful characteristic. In some cases they've gone by the legal middle name since a child, in other cases they changed their names when they got famous (a short skim of bio pages didn't have any that found it worth explaining). I just don't see the significance here. Middle name is welcome to have more discussion with contextual examples if there are sources that cover this concept, but such a lengthy list isn't needed. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This list meets WP:LISTPEOPLE since it appears to be a list of notable people who use their middle names. I think the original name should be restored to reflect this. I also think the list should be categorised so that at a glance readers can see Heads of State who use their middle name, Actors who use their middle names, Sportspeople who use their middle names, and so on. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. When I came across the title of this article while checking Isaidnoway's edit count stats (because I was curious about them after interacting with them at my admin recall request), I was shocked that it was still allowed here (even before discovering the AFD notice) and thought it was a holdover from Wikipedia's early days when we had lists of people by name ... I was very surprised that it was created in 2024. Indeed I've just discovered that in 2016 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable anglophones known by their middle names was closed as delete. There was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known by initials (which included "List of people known by middle name"), deleted in 2007. Graham87 (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uselessly indiscriminate. As I said at a related DYK, this is an incredibly common naming tradition (I use it!) that holds no encyclopedic merit. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: harmless but stupid and unnecessary. Technically meets WP:NLIST but what's the point of having this? What's next - Names of people whose names rhyme with crack? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was already nominated for deletion once under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in the previous deletion discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:08, 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARCO Coastal Refinery

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

Another proposed dead project which never really took off. Three sources are from the same newspaper. I think it would have been noticeable if it was under construction or complete. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comment. It's a dead project that hasn't worked out after all these years.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.
Draftify or merge to the parent, Pak-Arab Refinery. It is definitely a notable topic with a lot of media coverage but as of now the project is still a proposed project. I personally think we should keep it in draftspace and once the construction starts we can move it back to mainspace. 2A01:E0A:274:4420:E553:3AB4:B5BC:EBCA (talk) 16:54, 2 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 Byron Pitts#Personal life. Sandstein 21:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiani Pitts

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with sparse credits, none major. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 21 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, Women, Theatre, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 21 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!} 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Byron Pitts#Personal life: (father) I've just added a line there with the Vanity Fair source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Flyer (bus company)

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

This article is pertaining to a former trading name of Cityline New Zealand Ltd, a subsidiary of NZ Bus. An article for Cityline New Zealand Ltd also does not exist. A trading name for some non-notable subsidiary bus company which doesn't even has its own article fails WP:N. Additionally, this article only cites two sources which don't even appear to refer to the company as specifically "Valley Flyer" once, thereby also failing WP:RS. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:46, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could be redirected but all the mentions on NZ Bus are not sourced/source does not mention it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't think this qualifies for a redirect and it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable bus company. Barely even mentioned on its parent articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 3 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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Content can be merged from history. As Liz notes, the "keep" arguments are weak, merely asserting notability but not explaining why. Sandstein 21:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Duki coal mine attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Should be merged into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 like other similar incidents. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024: Into existing article. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say do not RUSHDELETE. Since this happened just a few days ago and we still need to determine if it meets or fails the NEVENT, I would suggest Draftify it for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. Not a lot here that can’t be contained in the list article easily. If it does prove notable through depth and length of coverage - which, there are some indications this might, it can always be re-split out. I oppose draftifying because there’s no problems solved there not solved by a merger. Pakistan specifically only very rarely has long term coverage of events that would receive retrospective coverage in many other countries. But this one seems quite severe so it could change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 article since that suggestion was sockstriked PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to redirect. Even if there's nothing to merge I find maintaining the link as a redirect makes it clearer to future readers that there was once a page there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as already in Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024.--Gul Butt (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the terrorist attack is notable enough with significant no. of deaths and easily passes WP:GNG. Mister Banker (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 21 deaths is a not insignificant number, and its too soon to declare WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NEVENT Jebiguess (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gul Butt, a merge is unnecessary in this case. This is a WP:News article and lacks sustained, significant, secondary coverage. Notability is not inherited by casualty count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. I think WP:NOTNEWS comes into play here. Although the event was significant, it remains a news story, and it's hard to tell what impact it will have later on (WP:CRYSTALBALL). By merging it, users will be able to find the event if needed, but I don't think a standalone article is merited at this time. DesiMoore (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the attack passes WP:NCRIME in which foreign nationals were killed and received a WP:DIVERSE coverage. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant damage happened here and the sourcing is also not weak. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge but Keeps are weak, just asserting the subject is notable without highlighting what sources help establish GNG. Claims have to be backed up by evidence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: there were only 2 merge !votes prior to your relisting. It's seems like you are just going to re-list until the time the result seems favorable to your POV. Mister Banker (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Banker, I don't care what happens with this particular article, I was just assessing the discussion as I saw it at the time. But since you have raised objections, I will let other editors/admins handle this discussion in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the list of "Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024"; this can always be broken out again into a new article if it turns out this is a substantially notable event. It doesn't seem to be at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the terrorist attacks list, where it is already discussed. Merging would not be appropriate since there's already the standard amount of info present in the list entry. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge and redirect to Insurgency in Balochistan#Fifth conflict, 2004–present. This was widely reported internationally, which does give an indication of notability per WP:GEOSCOPE, however it's difficult to gauge the lasting effect of this incident. Thousands of miners reportedly left the area [38] but is this long term? Other editors have proposed Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 for redirect/merge, however that article gives a sentence or two summary of the basic facts of each incident, so merging all the content there would give undue weight to this attack. Also, that page is itself a news-type summary with zero analysis and of questionable encyclopaedic value. Sources state no group has claimed responsibility for the attack and the Balochistan Liberation Army has denied involvement and condemned it. If/when the authorities charge/convict the perpetrators, a merge to the relevant terrorist group's article may be appropriate, but until that is determined a more relevant/precise target to give reader's some background and understanding of the conflict is for a redirect and selective merge to Insurgency in Balochistan . . .. Rupples (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that the topic has insufficient coverage, or at any rate not sustained coverage, for notability. Sandstein 21:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour Civilization

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

This article is about an insignificant passing internet meme that, like many others, fails the general notability guidelines. Every source in use here is from a tabloid, borderline unreliable source (save for Rolling Stone) that talks about a brief internet trend rather the series itself. To go into specifics, Daily Dot and Dexerto are tabloids that should be used with caution and cannot demonstrate notability per WP:RSP, IMBD is user-generated content and is unreliable as a result per WP:IMBD, and Times Now is an undiscussed source, but due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA it doesn't look good. And even if these sources were reliable, they are mostly just showcasing social media posts and don't actually hold any critical commentary. The show also fails WP:SUSTAINED, since every source was published in a short time frame, and nothing new has been written about the subject since as found by my WP:BEFORE searches. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per well argued nom. There appears to be a dearth of WP:INDEPTH WP:RELIABLE sources on the topic of the article (and not a tangentially related meme [which also doesn't pass the bar of WP:N]). Only the Rolling Stone article meets all the criteria that are needed to contribute to WP:GNG, and we can't hang an article on one source. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draft, as the page creator, I agree that it doesn't reach notability guidelines. Mainly due to WP:SUSTAINED like you mentioned. The page itself has brought myself a overload of anxiety due to the fact I thought for sure it was going to get deleted at some point. The Rolling Stone article is the only thing that actually gives anything insightful on the topic, but Wikipedia needs at least two reliable sources that meet the criteria to be considered notable. I am still new to Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the best outcome would be. The subject itself is only ~60% of the way to being considered notable, though, It could be possible it gains another notable source at some point in the future. (no idea if that'd be bringing it back to draft or just appealing it when the time comes)

Please do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but as for now I'd appreciate if it was sent back to draft space or deleted. ^-^ Kaixvny (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, there is no real "criteria" for what makes something notable or not. The notability guidelines only calls for "multiple" reliable sources. So depending on the depth of the sources at hand (multiple pages, academic coverage, etc.), that number could be as low as two, but many people writing about pop-culture topics sourced to news websites generally try and aim for three in-depth sources (though, again, this is not a requirement). But this doesn't really meet that anyways. With that being said, I'm sorry if worrying about if the article would survive or not stressed you out. It's just part of the learning process on Wikipedia that I have faced myself, as have many others. It takes a while to learn and get used to, but in the end it works out. λ NegativeMP1 22:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I think i pulled the number two from HELP:AFD in "How to save the article.", I completely agree, and I'm glad this page is finally getting a outcome, it feels much more like breather than anything. As later on during its lifespan, I realized how much I stretched out the sources I had, and the fact it was a ticking time-bomb. Like I said, I still believe it it could eventually reach notability/better coverage in the future but not as of this moment, though could It possibly be shrunken down into a paragraph in List of Internet phenomenas? Honestly, it may still be too un-notable for that but I'm just thinking of other possible outcomes. Kaixvny (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about nominate this article myself, but forgot about it. I agree with everything NegativeMP1 said. My search on DDG and Google showed up no other usable source besides a questionable source Dexerto. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification works too, although I feel like all the coverage are just flash in the pan. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: This article was obviously written by fans of the series, for fans of the series. But I think the article should be drafted rather than deleted, providing a chance for it to be reworked into a more encyclopedic article.—theMainLogan (t•c) 17:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can say, if the only sources are the series itself and IMdB is allowed, then why isn't Battle for Dream Island?. All of these points have been brought up against the series, what's different about that? not to mention on youtube they are of very close subscriber count. Think about that before saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyllstru (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaixvny, this isn't the place to discuss the inclusion of BFDI or any other article, but instead for Parkour Civilization, which should be done on Policies and Guidelines. I will note that nobody thus far (even the article's author) have advocated keep, so I don't know where you've got the idea that there is some hypocrisy (may I recommended reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ping, I am the page creator, replier is @Kyllstru! ^_^ Kaixvny (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It's my fault for my over-reliance on the WP:REPLYTOOL's pinging tool, without properly checking Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:SUSTAINED. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please take a look at the source assessment table I have created.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/parkour-civilization-minecraft-movie-cinema-1235124169/		Per WP:ROLLINGSTONE.	There is significant coverage about the video itself, and not just talking about it being viral.	✔ Yes
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-buzz/viral-minecraft-film-parkour-civilization-gets-removed-from-letterboxd-fans-outraged-article-113949603	Even though WP:NEWSORGINDIA urges editors to exercise caution, I don't see any reason to believe this is sponsored. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. These issues do not apply to this article.	WP:NEWSORG per Times Now - no reason to believe a reputable news organization would be unreliable when it comes to reporting on a mostly Western cultural phenomenon.	Despite intermingled with quotes from Twitter, analysis of the plot and its significance is plain significant coverage: hustling culture, societal injustice, and income disparity.	✔ Yes
https://www.dailydot.com/memes/parkour-civilization-meme/		~ I've gone and read the closing comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390#RFC (The Daily Dot). The main arguments against The Daily Dot's reliability has been on clickbait, [fusing] opinion with factual reporting, its political coverage, which do not apply much to this article, and there is the source is probably reliable for mundane reporting on internet culture. On reading the article I do not find too much bias in the reporting, so this is probably reliable.	~ Hard to salvage, but the sentences from the tale of an oppressed individual and The dramatic tone should be addressing the video directly and in detail as required in WP:SIGCOV.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall I believe these sources are enough in establishing notability per WP:GNG, and verifiable enough we can write an article on it. WP:NSUSTAINED appears to primarily talk about people and events, and for articles in other topics in general, no explicit words are given that sustained coverage is a requirement, but consideration should still be applied per context. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide very surface-level commentary on the show. The only third-party fact in the article (that is, not view count, voice actors, release medium, etc) is the fact that it inspired the meme "NO ONE chooses to jump for the beef". Any further coverage seems unlikely since the meme has already in its deathbed, unlike Skibidi Toilet or TADC. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) edited for typo 11:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article were you referring to? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to the Wikipedia article. The fact that there is a dearth of third-party content in the article creates WP:NPOV concerns, leading to WP:PAGEDECIDE considerations: Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The article as it currently stands is not a permanent stub and works fine as a standalone article to me. I'm not sure what you mean by third-party content though. The article is about the video series so it would make sense to talk about the video series? It is unclear to me where the NPOV issues are. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my personal view that if every fact in an article can be sourced to primary sources without any original research, that article would be quite useless. In this case, viewcounts, the creator, plot, and the release date can all be sourced to the YouTube channel without needing any interpretation by secondary sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I second Ca's comments. This isn't enough and what there is is basically flash-in-the-plan. And I would definitely say SUSTAINED should be taken into account regardless of it being a "requirement" or not. λ NegativeMP1 03:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't told me which sources fail significant coverage and why. The articles I have listed do, in my opinion, [address] the topic directly and in detail. I'm not sure what you mean by taking SUSTAINED into account. I've read sustained multiple times and I am unsure how that can be applied to a deletion discussion. If this passes GNG, then it is presumed notable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't pass GNG. You're basically working with one and a half sources, and I'm personally referring to the Times Now article (not sure what Ca is referring to). What is there is very surface level, and it's still mostly just rehashing social media comments. It's the type of source that would be thrown out in most deletion discussions. And the Daily Dot should be disqualified to establish notability due to its faultiness as a source. If another source or two came out then it'd be fine, but right now it's too soon. And applying SUSTAINED to a deletion discussion is very simple: maybe it's a bad sign for whether or not something is actually notable if all of the coverage that exists for a subject was published in the span of a few days, and then never again. λ NegativeMP1 16:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why Daily Dot should not be completely disqualified, and I'd like to hear more reasoning than just affirming its faultiness as a source.

As for Times Now, I'm really not sure what you mean by surface level when the third and fourth paragraph addresses the film directly and in detail. I do agree that the way it is written sounds AI-y and I am less enthusiastic about that.

On the whole, I still believe this passes GNG, even if just on the border line. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is marked by WP:RSP as there being absolutely no consensus regarding its reliability in general, then I do not think it should be used to establish notability in a case like this and even your own source assessment table marks it as "partial". And if a source sounds machine-generated, why are you arguing for its usage? And both paragraphs you highlight are literally just plot summary as well as a few dashes of what fans think of the series. There is no actual critical commentary from what the article author themselves thinks beyond "this exists".

And to solidify this further, this article was written by an author who has worked with Sportskeeda, which is an unreliable content farm and this article honestly reminds me of something that would come from Sportskeeda based on how its written (which, as you've said, could very well have been done by AI). So again, I will repeat, this weirdly-worded social media post rehashing page does not contribute to the subjects notability. Take into account the actual contents of these sources. λ NegativeMP1 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus does not mean consensus against. It just means that additional considerations apply. And in this case I don't think the additional considerations pose too much concern on how it can be used to establish notability.

That said, even though I believe this passes GNG, I'm not opposed to a closure with WP:TOOSOON. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do agree with 0xDeadbeef's comments. Bunnypranav (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments from 0xDeadbeef and the demonstrable impact of this beyond the vein of a "passing internet fad" Claire 26 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence of there being a "demonstrable impact" when the sourcing all happened in the same time frame and is weak enough as is? λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify: The source assessment table is a fancy way to make a topic look superficially notable, but one of the telltale signs of a GNG fail is the publication dates of all of the key sources being clustered together within the same single burst of news coverage: in this case October 2, 2024; October 4, 2024; and October 5, 2024. As such, this topic fails WP:SUSTAINED at the present moment. Left guide (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Left guide, it fails WP:SUSTAINED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This article passes WP:GNG (barely, but still). I will use the WP:CRYSTAL argument to dispute WP:SUSTAINED - the nature of this genre is unpredictable so there's no telling what can happen in the near future. It's too soon to say that there's no sustained coverage. I think we should definitely keep the article for now. DesiMoore (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a complete misunderstanding of what CRYSTAL actually is. How does CRYSTAL apply here at all? What CRYSTAL is is a policy against trying to predict future information or making articles on future events, and it does not argue against SUSTAINED. λ NegativeMP1 16:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. This subject has no substantive SUSTAINED coverage and seems to more or less just be a passing meme. If more coverage springs up in the future, there might be potential for recreation, but for now I don't see there being enough here to justify an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFx Factory

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

Poorly sourced article. A redirect was just reversed. A WP:BEFORE search turned up little to nothing. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Crowne Plaza Foshan Hotel

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

Fails WP:ORG. Searching for its name in English no significant third party coverage. I google translated the first few google news hits for its Chinese name and they don't appear to be in-depth. Would reconsider if someone did more thorough Chinese searches. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Travel and tourism, and China. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources
1. Zou, Yimin 邹益民; Zhou, Yaqing 周亚庆 (2006). 饭店战略管理 [Hotel Strategic Management] (in Chinese). Beijing: Tourism Education Press. ISBN 978-7-5637-1339-4. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "佛山宾馆作为佛山的首家五星级饭店,自1981年成立以来,从一家 70多间客房的小型饭店,发展成400多间客房,年营业额超1.5亿元,并具有一定国内知名度的五星级国际商务型旅游饭店。佛山宾馆国有股权公开推介转让,要求受让方必须是世界饭店业的前30强,引来了国内外数十家投资企业。至2004年12月31日,佛山宾馆65%的国有股权最终转让给国际知名的洲际饭店集团及其战略合作伙伴佛山奥园投资有限公司,出让总价超 4亿元(含承接债务),比原评估价溢价2.3%,而剩余的35%国有股权则转让给佛山宾馆的经营团队及骨干员工。洲际饭店集团入主经营后,佛山宾馆将更名为“佛山皇冠假日饭店”。"
  From Google Translate: "As the first five-star hotel in Foshan, Foshan Hotel has grown from a small hotel with more than 70 rooms to a five-star international business tourist hotel with more than 400 rooms, an annual turnover of more than 150 million yuan, and a certain domestic reputation since its establishment in 1981. The state-owned equity of Foshan Hotel was publicly promoted for transfer, requiring the transferee to be among the top 30 in the world's hotel industry, attracting dozens of domestic and foreign investment companies. As of December 31, 2004, 65% of the state-owned equity of Foshan Hotel was finally transferred to the internationally renowned InterContinental Hotels Group and its strategic partner Foshan Aoyuan Investment Co., Ltd., with a total transfer price of more than 400 million yuan (including debt assumption), a premium of 2.3% over the original appraisal price, and the remaining 35% of the state-owned equity was transferred to the management team and key employees of Foshan Hotel. After InterContinental Hotels Group took over the management, Foshan Hotel will be renamed "Foshan Crowne Plaza Hotel"."
2. "佛山宾馆晋「五星级」" [Foshan Hotel becomes "five-star"]. Wenhui Bao (in Chinese). 2004-02-22.
  The article notes: "佛山宾馆正式荣膺为佛山市首家「五星级旅游饭店」。21日下午，由国家旅游局总局颁发的「五星级旅游饭店」牌匾正式挂上佛山宾馆的正门。佛山宾馆的前身是政府招待所，始建于1981年，1989年名列国家旅游局首批授予的「三星级旅游涉外饭店」；1996年成为佛山市区首家「四星级旅游涉外饭店」，如今迈入「五星级旅游饭店」行列。"
  From Google Translate: "Foshan Hotel was officially awarded as the first "Five-Star Tourist Hotel" in Foshan City. On the afternoon of the 21st, the "Five-Star Tourist Hotel" plaque issued by the National Tourism Administration was officially hung on the main entrance of Foshan Hotel. Foshan Hotel was formerly a government guesthouse. It was built in 1981 and was listed in the first batch of "Three-Star Tourist Foreign-Related Hotels" awarded by the National Tourism Administration in 1989. In 1996, it became the first "Four-Star Tourist Foreign-Related Hotel" in Foshan City. Now it has entered the ranks of "Five-Star Tourist Hotels"."
  The rest of the article talks about a recent renovation and technology improvements the hotel made with Internet access and uninterruptible power supplies.
3. Luo, Zhi-wei 罗志伟 (2003-12-12). "佛山宾馆做足功课迎宾客确保《佛山千人宴》顺利进行" [Foshan Hotel has done its homework to welcome guests and ensure the smooth progress of "Foshan Banquet for Thousands of People"]. Wenhui Bao (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "记者走进电梯间，一眼就看到了中国工艺美术大师梅文鼎的原作「年年有余」；而在中庭展示区的左边，分别摆放着同样是中国工艺美术大师的庄稼、廖洪标的两件作品。此外，中国陶艺大师刘炳和刘泽棉的作品「陆羽品茶」和「布袋罗汉」还高雅地摆挂在中庭的右边。据透露，为了让来访和入住的宾客们欣赏和感染到具有佛山本地特色的传统工艺佳作，渲染宾馆上五星所需的艺术氛围和典雅，宾馆近期采购了这些作品回来。"
  From Google Translate: "The reporter walked into the elevator and saw the original work "Year after Year" by Chinese arts and crafts master Mei Wending at a glance; and on the left side of the atrium display area, there were two works by Zhuang Jiao and Liao Hongbiao, who are also Chinese arts and crafts masters. In addition, the works "Lu Yu Tasting Tea" and "Budai Luohan" by Chinese ceramic masters Liu Bing and Liu Zemian are also elegantly hung on the right side of the atrium. It is revealed that in order to let the visiting and staying guests appreciate and be infected by the traditional craft masterpieces with Foshan local characteristics, and to render the artistic atmosphere and elegance required for the hotel to be rated five stars, the hotel recently purchased these works."
4. Hu, Feng 胡丰 (2005-01-01). "佛山宾馆转让国有股权" [Foshan Hotel transfers state-owned equity]. Nanfang Daily (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "本报讯昨日，佛山市国资委授权佛山市公盈投资控股有限公司引入国际知名企业洲际酒店集团，并就转让佛山宾馆65%的国有股权签署了协议。至此，佛山已把华侨大厦、金城大酒店及禅城酒店国有产权(资产)全部转让给新的投资者。"
  From Google Translate: "This newspaper reported that yesterday, Foshan State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission authorized Foshan Gongying Investment Holding Co., Ltd. to introduce the internationally renowned company InterContinental Hotels Group and signed an agreement to transfer 65% of the state-owned equity of Foshan Hotel. So far, Foshan has transferred all the state-owned property rights (assets) of Overseas Chinese Building, Jincheng Hotel and Chancheng Hotel to new investors."
5. "卫生监督员入厨监管洗菜佛山宾馆将为各国部长度身定做个性化菜式" [Health supervisors enter the kitchen to supervise the washing of vegetables. Foshan Hotel will tailor-make personalised dishes for ministers from various countries.]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). 2005-11-01.
  The article notes: "本报讯前来参加论坛的亚洲各国文化部长将全部入住佛山市唯一一家五星级酒店佛山宾馆。该次接待为佛山宾馆有史以来规模和影响最大的一次，宾馆上下严阵以待，从饮食到保安层层把关，亚艺期间不接待其他宾客。"
  From Google Translate: "This newspaper reports that the ministers of culture from various Asian countries who come to attend the forum will all stay at Foshan Hotel, the only five-star hotel in Foshan. This reception is the largest in scale and influence in the history of Foshan Hotel. The hotel is on high alert, with strict checks from food to security. No other guests will be received during the Asian Art Festival."
  The article notes: "据悉，佛山宾馆第13、14楼全部重新装修，改建为一房一厅的套房23间。部长论坛期间，佛山宾馆将全部闭馆，除了少数长住熟客外，概不接待其他客人。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that the 13th and 14th floors of Foshan Hotel have been completely renovated and converted into 23 one-bedroom and one-living room suites. During the Ministerial Forum, Foshan Hotel will be completely closed and will not receive other guests except for a few long-term regular customers."
6. Huang, Jing 黄静实; Tang, Qi 汤䔖 (2004-09-23). "佛山拟转让四大国有酒店包括今年新晋五星的佛山宾馆，将协议转让控股权，不进行公开拍卖" [Foshan plans to transfer four state-owned hotels, including the newly upgraded five-star Foshan Hotel this year. The controlling stake will be transferred by agreement and no public auction will be held.]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "本报讯(记者黄静实习生汤䔖)记者昨日从佛山市国资委获悉，经佛山市政府批准，佛山拟转让四大星级酒店的国有股权(资产)，它们分别是：佛山宾馆(五星)、金城大酒店(四星)、华侨大厦(四星)、禅城酒店(三星)。"
  From Google Translate: "This reporter (reporter Huang Jing, intern Tang Qi) learned from Foshan State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission yesterday that Foshan plans to transfer the state-owned equity (assets) of four star-rated hotels with the approval of Foshan Municipal Government. They are: Foshan Hotel (five-star), Jincheng Hotel (four-star), Overseas Chinese Building (four-star), Chancheng Hotel (three-star)."
7. Tang, Keqin 汤克琴; Zhang, Qianjing 张倩菁 (2008-12-11). "佛宾挂牌"皇冠假日"业主未变洲际酒店集团只输出管理，楼外建筑仍保留"佛山宾馆"标识" [Foshan Hotel is renamed as "Crown Holiday Hotel" but the owner remains unchanged. InterContinental Hotels Group only exports management, and the building outside the building still retains the "Foshan Hotel" logo]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "去年底更名为“佛山皇冠假日酒店”的佛山宾馆经过一年筹备，昨日正式挂上此名。而“佛山宾馆”的字样将继续保留，管理方洲际酒店集团只是输出管理，不持有股权。已有27年历史的佛山宾馆为佛山首家五星级大酒店，2004年底转制，在国有股权转让的过程中，佛山市奥园置业投资有限公司、佛山市佛宾酒店管理有限公司分别受让佛山宾馆65%和35%的国有股权。... 2007年12月22日，洲际酒店集团进驻佛山宾馆，佛宾成为中国第79家由该集团管理的酒店。"
  From Google Translate: "Foshan Hotel, which was renamed "Foshan Crown Holiday Hotel" at the end of last year, was officially named yesterday after a year of preparation. The words "Foshan Hotel" will continue to be retained, and the management party InterContinental Hotels Group only exports management and does not hold equity. The 27-year-old Foshan Hotel is the first five-star hotel in Foshan. It was restructured at the end of 2004. During the transfer of state-owned equity, Foshan Aoyuan Real Estate Investment Co., Ltd. and Foshan Foshan Hotel Management Co., Ltd. respectively acquired 65% and 35% of the state-owned equity of Foshan Hotel. ... On 22 December 2007, InterContinental Hotels Group entered Foshan Hotel, and Fobin became the 79th hotel managed by the group in China."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crowne Plaza Foshan Hotel (Chinese: 佛山皇冠假日酒店), previously known as Foshan Hotel (simplified Chinese: 佛山宾馆; traditional Chinese: 佛山賓館), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 28 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 11:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coresystems

AfDs for this article:

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

A decade after the last AfD and the company doesn't seem any more notable under WP:NCORP than it did then. Brandon (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Switzerland. Brandon (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company, originally created by an account blocked as a sockpuppet. The 2015 AfD attracted minimal attention. Since then, the company has been split. Taking this article's topic to be the "SAP add-ons, consulting and reselling" residue, searches find this publicity piece regarding their InsightLoop pivot to AI (using the same words added to the article by an IP), but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 21 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!} 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's the odd mention here or there, both in English and German, but I'm not seeing anything that would come close to meeting NCORP, or even merit a mention on SAP's page. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:10, 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 draftify‎. I am reluctant to SALT a page that hasn't gone through AfD before, despite the author's blatant refusal to commit to going through AfC, and the poor understanding of our notability guidelines they are demonstrating here. Please alert me or any admin if the draft is moved back to mainspace without seeing a meaningful improvement in sourcing. Owen× ☎ 20:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

120 Bahadur

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

Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be draftified, or redirected, but please don't delete.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see from page history that the page was moved to draft but it was moved back to mainspace but I am giving benefit of doubt that Bonadart will accept the consensus by the closer, if it ends with draftify and not move it back to mainspace till the film gets significant coverage likely after post-production. RangersRus (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Ladakh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and unveiling of the look and is in pre-production with cast and crew not confirmed yet. No significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should not bring other pages to discussion on this AFD. Draftify is because the film is too early with no significant coverage and has not made it to post-production. RangersRus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even this article is covered by the press release, like most articles that are edited by the creator of this article. There is a risk that it may be a COI (I will investigate the case and come back with details).--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it is futile to Draftify this article if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space so I'd like to see some assurances from them about this. A Redirect was also mentioned but it's not clear what the target article would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for keeping the discussion alive

my 3 points

1. with all due respect ' if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space ' is bit harsh, please understand it takes time and effort to create a page, lot more to develop it. i have no issue if a article is deleted or kept in draft but it should always be done after thorough discussion, once consensus is reached why will any one have any problem, certainly not me.

2. regarding this page as I said earlier, agreed that this film is about a year away but so are movies like The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 but all these films have well established pages already, my point is these films are based on fiction where as this film '120 Bahadur' is based on reality and facts, so it deserves a space.

3. as for sources anyone include better sources if anyone can find.

thanks

Bonadart (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey, Liz, maybe Excel Entertainment would be a good redirect target. However, regardless of the delete or redirect I would recommend protecting the title due to what you say about someone who is likely going to just remove it and recreate the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see any consensus but I'm not ready to close this as No Consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. We can always simply protect the page in mainspace or require that the draft pass AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would be complaints for a "requirement" that an editor make use of AFC unless a) there are COI issues or b) the draft is of an article that was deleted through an AFD. There are a lot of experienced editors who view AFC as completely optional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Redirect to Excel Entertainment#Upcoming Projects. I believe a redirect will make more sense until more information is provided about the film. Plus, no information about the cast is provided in the article. TNM101 (chat) 11:24, 28 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!} 06:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taoguang Yanghui

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

This article should be moved to draft as it still needs much work. At present, it is a rough translation and remains very essay-like. Amigao (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable and well referenced. It isn’t a rough translation at all, and while I agree it is essay-like, that can easily be remedied in mainspace by any editor who cares to do so. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no proper deletion rationale has been stated. As @Mccapra says this article is notable and the references are plentiful. Deletion is not cleanup and the article should be given some time to grow (or maybe contract a bit...).
@Amigao you didn't notify the article creator on their talk page. I've gone ahead and done that. Oblivy (talk) 07:24, 21 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!} 04:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, without prejudice to a WP:DRAFTREASON #2 draftify. I really can't see any difference between this and a machine translated version of the jpwiki page, so there is a valid, policy based reason to draftify (WP:ATD-I). I'm not convinced draftification would be the best option right now though. I would like the option to draftify to remain open if there are no improvements in, say, 2 months, though, because it really does need a significant rewrite. (Or maybe stubify to two or three paragraphs, but we can make the decision then not now) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:07, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using AI to Protect NC Healthcare Systems

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

An essay, presumably written by a college class. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Technology, and North Carolina. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG by failing test of WP:NOT. Honestly there should be a CSD category for "ill-conceived class assignment." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 Or, perhaps more seriously, "blatant essay," which this would fall under.

AtSymbolEveryone: Rest assured, the university and WikiEdu staff surrounding this article have been notified about this AfD. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On New Page Review, I have seen a reasonable number of essays masquerading as articles produced for a class assignment. They've often gone unreviewed long enough that they can be PRODded without objection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I don't use PROD for new page patrol, seeing how I've never been able to use it in that context without the creator objecting. It's a good thing, I suppose, that you found a loophole to that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like WP:FORUM. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete but this is a common issue with these college classes and I strongly believe that enrolled students should not be able to move assignments into mainspace without going through WP:AFC. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esolo5002 Unfortunately, AfC might take too long for a college course. I suspect we don't notice most college courses that go through WikiEdu (such as this one) because they do a substantially better job...or, at least, whatever it is they do doesn't require an entire article to be deleted.

Of course, perhaps there should better controls of how college-related userspace drafts get moved into mainspace, nevertheless. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going by their talk page, I feel like they might have "forgot" to complete the training modules (or just rushed through them without reading the instructions), since even the usual essay-like stuff we get from WikiEdu are much better (at least, good enough that I'd just tag and release instead of needing high explosives). I don't think actually getting reviewed and mainspaced should necessarily be a requirement for their assignment to be marked (if it is then they should remove it) but I'm not sure these ones would actually read the instructions to keep them in draft.

I understand from the talk page that the WikiEdu team does their own post-publication review process and moves things back to draft when necessary, I think a good first step would be to make that process a pre-publication process as much as possible, and ideally with some form of on-wiki note of the feedback received (this doesn't have to be the full feedback if there's anything they'd like to keep private, but some indication of what they went through would be nice). Carving out WikiEdu submissions from WP:DRAFTNO to allow individual reviewer discretion in enforcing draft/userification even when contested would probably cover the rest. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 Unfortunately, I can anticipate a negative impact on our relationships with universities if there were a few too many drafts being moved back into draftspace over a professors/students objections. But, as you said, this student probably didn't complete the training as intended, so my objection is mainly to that is that the benefit is smaller than the (already small) risk.

I'm not sure why there's such an expectation to move things to mainspace, to be frank. I just know when there's a "move to mainspace" step, we have problems with a small minority of students. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to be an attempt to write an encyclopedia article. McYeee (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and the other reasons already provided. (Also, as a professor, I'd like to apologize for all the profs who think having students write mainspace WP articles is a good idea. For every good article generated we get dozens of pieces of awkward clutter that have to be cleaned up for years to come. Whenever I see that WikiEdu template, I shudder.) WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed No need to apologize! Personally, I think it's perhaps best to have students improve existing articles. I've seen some improvement when that happens. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay, not properly using in-line citations. This could be perhaps brought back in the context of an "AI in healthcare" article, covering the entire planet, not one specific location. Delete as this doesn't seem to fit into Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 28 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 delete‎ per WP:G3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avar-Kabardian campaign (1618)

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

This is a (possible, but not assured) WP:HOAX. Most sources are offline and, those that aren't, are broken links. At least two of the sources don't appear to exist at all (or at least in any database like Worldcat, etc.). I approved this via WP:AFC based on a background check that accidentally conflated this campaign with what, on further investigation, was an entirely different event.

The new editor who submitted this also submitted another article related to a battle which I just rejected at AFC, after being unable to confirm that some of the sources even existed, let alone supported the content. Note my comments there [39]. Chetsford (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have blocked the author of this article. Chetsford (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many of the sources do not appear to exist (e.g. I can find no evidence of a Yuri A. Popov affiliated with North-Caucasus Federal University and the link is to ncuf.edu, which is the wrong domain; it should be ncfu.ru. Similarly there is no caucasusherald.com or historicalecho.com or caucasianstudies.org.) If this isn't a hoax, the references are so badly constructed that I am unable to find the sources cited, and in many cases even the authors and publishers of those sources, and Google Scholar turns up no results for "Avar-Kabardian 1618". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except a link to this article I cannot find anything on Google, Scholar, etc. about this alleged event and I cannot verify even a single of the sources provided. Killarnee (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Journal of Caucasian Studies does exist, no such paper that was referenced in the article was published that year. I suspect it to be reference fabrication. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:16, 28 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 Tabatha Coffey#Television. ✗plicit 01:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Success with Tabatha

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

Fails GNG. Most of the sources provided are www.showbuzzdaily.com . The other sources not reliable being instagram and tvguide.com LibStar (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, Australia, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – while there is some coverage (see this, this, this), it often borders on tabloid-y and focuses on the star as much as, if not more than, the program. It should be mentioned at Tabatha Coffey#Television as it currently is, but a standalone article seems unwarranted. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine with redirect as noted below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect then? (Not opposed to Keep, myself, given existing coverage).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:48, 28 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.

[t394-1] Lappin, Yaakov (30 November 2009). "Taxi driver found dead in cab in North". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 24 October 2024.

[y031-2] "Nazareth Imam Convicted of Inciting Terror". Israel National News. Retrieved 24 October 2024.

[t030-3] Shay, S. (2017). Somalia in Transition Since 2006. Taylor & Francis. p. 1-PT87. ISBN 978-1-351-48876-1. Retrieved 24 October 2024.

[4] Azriel, Guy (28 June 2010). "7 Nazareth residents indicted for attacks against Jews, Christians". CNN. CNN. Archived from the original on 9 September 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2014.

[u739-5] Ashkenazi, Eli (15 July 2010). "Shin Bet Arrests Eight Israeli Arabs for Illicit Arms Trading". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 24 October 2024.

[6] Symons, Mitchell (2007). "Famous People Who Use Their Middle Names As First Names". This, That And The Other. Transworld Publishers. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-552-15647-9. Archived from the original on June 22, 2024. Retrieved June 22, 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]