Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 09	September 11 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ireland, Bern

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

Fails WP:ORG. 4 of the 5 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I could say that it is relevant for some future event, in addition, the diplomatic headquarters will always be reflected in history in the event of a break in diplomatic relations or progress in these, it is important to reflect this. --Alon9393 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you fail to state how this meets notability criteria. "Some future event" is WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 minutes earlier you say almost the same thing in another AfD [1]. Zero attempt to demonstrate ability, Zero attempt to find sources. LibStar (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No notability. GhostOfNoMeme 17:54, 15 September 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 Got Talent#Israel. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Danon

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

Article without notoriety, and very poor encyclopedic failure in musical coverage, it only stood out for participating in a talent show Alon9393 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Israel, and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 10 September 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 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Israel's Got Talent. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Changing to Delete after Liz's comment. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not much coverage at all, she released a song in 2022, then that seems to be it. [2] I'm not even sure that's a RS. But it's small. Lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable Rainsage (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Israel's Got Talent~~ Got Talent#Israel, where she is mentioned as a winner of the youth competition. This entry has been deleted at Hewiki. Redirect should trump delete by ATD and CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to note that Israel's Got Talent is not an appropriate target page as it is redirect itself. It should appear as a green link. It points to a section of a different article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed to Got Talent#Israel. It would be great if everyone could get behind this redirect target! gidonb (talk) 19:27, 17 September 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!} 04:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Raj

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

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.

1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.

2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.

3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.

4. Has significant social media following.

5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check

6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.

First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.

It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.

The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.

I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a promotional article [3], so the statement stands. Others are items this person published under their own name, and are a primary source. No articles strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't commenting on the person named in the deletion, but the authors that wrote the paid pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the sources aren't at par with what I'd expect when looking for WP:BLPRS, I do believe there are atleast three reliable sources that satisfy the bar for notability:
- [4] is a article in The Hindu talks in detail about a paper the individual coauthored.
- [5] is another article in The Hindu that talks about a study he lead.
- [6] is another article in The Telegraph (India) that talks about research that he lead.
- [7] is another article in Indian Express that also talks about his research.

I think the fact that the findings in his research are being covered by newspapers of record and the fact that he holds the position of a assistant professor at IIM Bangalore would sufficiently qualify him to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7. Sohom (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. Many are passing mentions coming from a report released by the Indian Institute of Management. The Hindu article has no byline and the impact of the report is nowhere to be seen. The second Hindu article is authored by a freelance journalist and a study/ report done with 2 others. 3 has some interview bytes and 4 only mentions his name once.

The position of Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore doesn't carry much weight when evaluating for WP:NACADEMIC. I believe the extensive coverage about the latest report is only because it is related to Karnataka's govt, which i beleive only makes it as routine coverage.

I fail to see Prateek Raj's reports creating substantial impact in terms of citations or otherwise. AFAICS, they fail to meet all eight criterias listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira To clear one thing up, I did not imply that the position "Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore" carries much weight. What I implied was that given the fact that he is a professor, we should use the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to evaluate him instead of the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. Sohom (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments. The academic is known for 3 separate issues, reported in reputed and prominent media houses of India. I will highlight only media mentions that cover exclusively or prominently him.

1. for his recent paper on Dalit economy, where he has been interviewed in the Hindu, the Telegraph, the Indian Express, the New Indian Express, the Times of India. All these interviews are referenced in the article, like, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/dalit-business-owners-experience-income-gap-of-16-when-compared-to-other-disadvantaged-groups-finds-study/article68505789.ece

2. for his work on hate speech. He has a full interview with The Times India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/podcasts/the-times-of-india-podcast/how-hate-can-hurt-indias-economic-dreams/videoshow/102992737.cms. He also has a detailed interview with Indian Express and NDTV, and well as a full interview on history of media markets in Bloomberg.

3. for his advocacy of LGBT rights. His October 2023 OpEd in the Indian Express merits him a notable place in LGBT Academics category, which is underpopulated, and needs more biographies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sc-marriage-equality-judgment-8992557/.

Thanks to this review process, which is helpful as it helps identify what is noteworthy about the subject. The constructive way forward may be to trim the article with only the most noteworthy information. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources on the page are quite poor with some written by the subject himself and some others with passing mention and interviews on paid promotional sources. Some sources are also unreliable. The subject has not had a significant noteworthy impact through his profession and outside the profession nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Page also reads as resume. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some more opinions here. But, Pinknetwork123 know that interviews don't help establish notability. Their content can be used to verify article content but having the subject talk about themself and their work doesn't help demonstrate that the subject themself is notable (as Wikipedia judges notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz! Your input helped me assess the sources better. With AfC and AfD processes, the article has significantly improved with mostly credible secondary sources that meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 in my view (thanks for highlighting Sohom!). I focused on Wikipedia:BLPRS-compliant sources that aren't based on press releases, particularly relevant in the Indian context (Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA). Here are a few: The Telegraph, The Hindu, and Indian Express highlight the author’s work on caste; Economic Times and Mint cover his work on regional inequality. The one-to-one Times of India interview is as a notable hate speech activist, and his October 2023 Indian Express Op-Ed, though a primary source, is relevant for his role as an LGBT academic from Global South (an underrepresented group on Wikipedia, here). Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to pass academic notability with very few publications. Wonderful that they advocate for change, but just not enough non-puffy coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are invariably not notable and this one is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The article has undergone a lot of revision since it was nominated. Here is the source assessment for the current version with 23 sources.
- Direct independent coverage from secondary sources for criteria WP:NACADEMIC#7 (reliable) 11 sources: 1 (Hindu), 2, 21, 22 (Indian Express), 6 (NDTV), 7, 20 (Times of India), 10, 11 (Telegraph India), 12 (New Indian Express), 23 (Bloomberg)
- Significant mention in independent coverage from secondary sources (reliable) 3 sources: 3 (Economic Times), 4 (The Mint), 20 (Outlook)
- Direct coverage from secondary sources but could be press release. (partially reliable) 2 sources: 13 (Times of India), 18 (Hindu)
- Primary sources (less reliable) 7 sources: 5 (Op-Ed by author - Indian Express), 8, 16 (Profile, Report - Chicago Booth), 9 (Paper by author - PLOS One), 14 (News - IIMB), 15 (News - King’s College), 17 (Report - US Congress)Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, criterium 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is clearly met with extensive and diverse media coverage in more than one occurrences. Meeting one of the criteria is enough for academic notability.

JamesKH76 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to mention the extensive and diverse media coverage that Prateek Raj has received for his substantial impact outside academia, apart from the promotional, Op-ed, routine coverage of reports presented to governments and interview sources. To be precise, please highlight his substantial impact . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm on the fence, but reading through the references I would say WP:NACADEMIC is probably satisfied (also per Sohom). There are a sufficient number of independent, reliable sources providing coverage, albeit some not spectacularly robust. GhostOfNoMeme 21:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also like to add that the nominator's obvious undisclosed paid editing aspersion seems a tad unnecessary and hardly in keeping with assuming good faith of our fellow editors. It hardly sets the stage for a productive discussion (not that AfDs are exactly known for their convivial atmosphere...). GhostOfNoMeme 21:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you expect good faith when the author has admitted to editing Wikipedia without logging in, to the extent that they are able to come up with a 20k byte article? Are you saying they’re unaware of their COI, yet have managed to produce an article that follows all style and formatting guidelines? They still haven't disclosed their COI on their user page, even after acknowledging it in this AfD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think passing academic notability is a rather generous interpretation of the sources; they mention him but aren't about him. A few mentions isn't quite what we need to prove academic notability Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe I am being too generous. I'll look back over the references when I have the time and consider amending my vote or just striking it. GhostOfNoMeme 02:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see notability. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted by other editors as well, I think the subject not only has notability, supported by wide coverage in serious and reputed secondary media sources as listed in the article, none of which are even closely promotional (listed multiple times above), he is also salient on a front that I believe Wikipedia cares about: The addition of the nth soap actor on Wikipedia may not add to the diversity of knowledge base, but the addition of a noted LGBTQ rights and anti-hate speech Indian academic, covered by highly reputed sources, does (link to Wikipedia's page on Wiki Loves Pride). Many readers like me, may like to know about rare Indian business school intellectuals like him who work on subaltern topics and speak for subaltern voices. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this process there's been a bunch of protesting by the page creator User:Pinknetwork123 about the way they are being treated, a twenty edit contributor seemingly "newsplaining" policies to longtime editors. The editor's only contributions are to this page; IMHO this BLP work is very promotional. In defense of the nominator, if I'd come across this page in this condition, I'd have labelled it as likely COI (or autobiography) myself. On the merits, there's nothing in RS demonstrating this subject meets GNG, ANYBIO or NACADEMIC. Arguments to the contrary lack supporting evidence. Most presented sources are interviews or lack independence. As an aside, IMHO, User:GhostOfNoMeme is being overgenerous. BusterD (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, IMHO, User:GhostOfNoMeme is being overgenerous.

Yeah, having finally had the time to re-review the references (as I promised I would days ago but promptly forgot...) with a fresh perspective I'm inclined to agree. Leaning towards a Delete, all things considered. GhostOfNoMeme 17:30, 14 September 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!} 23:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Sports Network

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

The article is devoid of citations indicating notability, and a cursory search suggests that this cannot be improved upon. It is WP:N CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, American football, Baseball, Basketball, Football, Softball, Volleyball, Wrestling, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just posting some sources I found. [8][9] Not enough yet though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To go with the two sources that WikiOriginal-9 posted above I've found, [10], [11], Midwest sports net via YouTube, [12], some doc? not sure what it is, primary source? Is this blog the owner of the network? release notice I really could post loads of sources, a lot seem to be from colleges news sources for the network. I am unclear what to make of the lot of them. @GiantSnowman: I really am unsure, but there are a lot of hits on google, and I've just posted maybe a small selection. I used the search term Victory Sports Network -wikipedia -victorysportsnetwork.com At the moment my flag would be no consensus I can't tell whether it's a keep or delete from what I've seen. Govvy (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see enough there, sorry. Giant Snowman 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with keep but I don't dispute that the article sourcing needs improvement. I disagree that it is "devoid of citations" as the nominator states. Lacking? Yes. Devoid? No.--Paul McDonald (talk)
Delete: Of the sources in the article, they are either press releases or non-RS. Of the sources provided in the discussion, the first is a brief announcement which doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV, the second is about the unrelated network Victory Sports One, and the rest are in a similar vain as they are either about unrelated services with the same name or aren't reliable WP:SIGCOV. A search for better sources didn't reveal much more, and as such the WP:GNG is not met here. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Let'srun: Did I get some wires crossed and pick on sources for a different company? Govvy (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, at least for some of the sources you linked to. The first couple of sources you linked to is about a new team owned streaming service for the Dallas Stars which the article itself notes is "newly formed", and to my knowledge has nothing to do with this network, which was formed in 2002 and covers NAIA athletics. I think the rest of those sources are about this company but they are either primary sources/interviews or non-RS. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per discussions above. Notability doesn't seem to be established. Chris1834 Talk

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 Assück. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pavlovich

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

WP:BLP of a musician and artist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NARTIST.
The attempted notability claim as a musician is that he was formerly lead singer of a band, but band members are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles as separate topics from their bands just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage that focuses specifically on them (as opposed to just glancingly namechecking them in coverage of the band) -- however, the only music-related footnote here is a "10 best death metal singers" listicle in an unreliable source, which is not sufficient to claim passage of NMUSIC by itself.
And the attempted notability claim as a visual artist is that he's had local art shows in the region where he lives, referenced to one short blurb and a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else, which is not sufficient to get him over the notability bar for visual artists either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better coverage in reliable sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Assück. I never would have imagined that I’d write that sentence, but it makes sense to me. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging as suggested seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough coverage to have his own article and has had a notability tag since 2008 only 15 minutes after it was created by a user that, judging by his edit history, might of had a WP:COI. cyberdog958^Talk 06:28, 11 September 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 Mullaghbrack. Content is retained in the page history so if you want to Merge any relevant content, it's right there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drumnamether

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

Fails to meet GNG specifically the "Significant coverage" section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did mean to include that I read over WP:GEOLAND but wasn't sure if this place was legally recognized. Either way it seems to fail both GNG and SNG. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mullaghbrack. As noted, there doesn't appear to be anything especially notable about (and no significant coverage of) this small townland. The only sources I can find are the same directory-style entries (confirming existence and location) we have in the article. I can't even find any population information (to confirm whether the townland is sufficiently populated or otherwise contains notable structures) to warrant a stand-alone article. Per WP:GEOLAND, this small townland can be covered "in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" (the civil parish of Mullaghbrack being the next level "up"). With a redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are townlands inherently notable as being legally recognized? If not it could be merged with its parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GEOLAND "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." and "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." hence why I included that I couldnt tell if it's legally recognized as there would be more of an argument to keep if it was legally recognized. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drumnamether, like many other townlands, deserves acknowledgment in accordance with WP:GEOLAND; if it were to be overlooked, one might wonder why townlands are not absent from Wikipedia altogether. Sharkzy (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharkzy Do you mind indicating which part of WP:GEOLAND mentions townlands? IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Crouch, Swale asks if townlands have legal recognition or inherent notability. And Sharkzy implies that, if we have articles on other townlands, then this one also "deserves acknowledgement". In terms of legal recognition, while their names are recorded (by the Placenames Commission) and populations of townlands in the Republic of Ireland are recorded (by the CSO), townlands do not have "legal recognition" for any material purpose (planning, elections, administration, etc). In either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. (Note that this townland is in Northern Ireland, and so there is not even sufficient sources to even establish its population as a "census tract".) So, no, in terms of inherent notability, townlands are not "automatically" notable. And are taken on a case-by-case basis. With redirect being a common outcome. With deletion also agreed as appropriate. In terms of the suggestion that "one might wonder why townlands are not absent from Wikipedia altogether", this reads like an WP:OSE argument. There are over 61,000 townlands in Ireland. Not all are inherently notable. Many form part of cities and towns and other settlements and do not need to be covered in separate titles. Others may have some independent notability (perhaps because they contain a material population, archaeological sites, protected areas, geographic features, share their name with the town/village/parish/island they occupy, or were the site of other historical events that have been the subject of significant/material coverage). However, many of Ireland's 61,000 townlands span barely a field or two. With many containing no buildings, no population, no archaeological remains, no geographic features (other than grass/trees/rocks) and, as a result, have not been the subject of sufficient coverage to establish notability. And for which no content (other than a dicdef/sub-stub entry that confirms that the place exists on a map and has a name) can be written. In short: Just because we have articles on some townlands, doesn't mean we should have articles on all of them. Or, conversely, just because this townland isn't sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, doesn't mean that "townlands [should be] absent from Wikipedia altogether". (The same goes for people, books, companies, streets, buildings, TV shows, etc, etc. Very few things are automatically notable. But, just because one is [or isn't] doesn't mean that all are [or aren't].....). This one isn't... Guliolopez (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional information this is really helpful! IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here. There was mention of a Merge, so I'd like to see if there is support for that option and what the target article would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To confirm, and per Liz's "relist" note above, my recommendation remains that this title simply be redirected to Mullaghbrack. Perhaps Mullaghbrack#Geography. Where this small townland is (now) mentioned. I do not see what (else) there is to merge (the stuff about the townland's location/size/etc is already covered in the target; The additional comparative text, about its relative location/size, compared to other nearby townlands, is of questionable relevance; As are the few words about a long-closed cabin-based school). The simple fact remains that there are barely sufficient sources to support the short "this place exists and is near other places" text that we have.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I can change my vite when I listed the article for deletion but I support redirecting to the appropriate page. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:41, 11 September 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. A discussion about a possible Merger can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detentions following the September 11 attacks

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

Could easily be merged into Aftermath of the September 11 attacks if a new section is created. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into PENTTBOM. According to the sources on the destination page, the arrests were made as a result of the PENTTBOM investigation, so it would make sense for this page to be merged as an additional section there. Longhornsg (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Detentions following the September 11 attacks seems to be a more understandable and encyclopedic article than the incomprehensible PENTTBOM imho. --The Cunctator (talk) The Cunctator (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content is related to but distinct from PENTTBOM and is is of sufficient encyclopedic merit not to be merged into the mega-article Aftermath of the September 11 attacks, which acts as a survey page linking to other content. --The Cunctator (talk)
Keep per Cunctator Andre🚐 18:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are arguments to Keep and two different Merge target articles have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 September 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 University of Prince Edward Island. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPEI Student Union

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

While UPEI is notable, the union does not inherit that notability. This serves as a promo piece. Wozal (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Wozal (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The union receives very regular coverage from the CBC:

And from, as far as I can tell, at least one other outlet:

https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/lifestyles/20-questions-with-upei-student-union-president-camille-mady-100895015/

So maybe it can still go in UPEI, but you can’t dismiss this out of hand. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to the university. The secondary sources both on the article and listed here, are transactional in nature, rather than the detailed sources that are required to show notability. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions. So, is what being suggested by one editor a Merge to University of Prince Edward Island? It helps if you provide a link to the target article as there might be several articles that exist on the same overall subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to UPEI. University student unions are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but this one hasn't really been sourced properly for the purposes of establishing notability, which means it should be discussed in the university's article rather than having its own standalone spinoff. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 16 September 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 Canada–Romania relations. If there is no content to Merge, than this page can be changed to a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Romania, Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Romania, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canada-Romania relations: Most embassies aren't notable by themselves but make a good addition to the two countries' relations. Hlsci (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with Canada-Romania relations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to demonstrate any particular notability about this building. I'd support a merge but the article Canada–Romania relations already says all that needs to be said: The Embassy of Romania in Ottawa was opened in 1970. and this article contains literally no additional information about the embassy that could even be merged (with the possible exception of the embassy's address; I don't honestly know whether pages on bilateral relations typically feature full addresses of respective embassies). GhostOfNoMeme 23:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep and no further support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gringo Loco

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

Lacks mainstream WP:RS, doesnt appear to meet WP:GNG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a bizarre nomination, he's so well known on the independent scene he had a Game Changer Wrestling event named after him GCW Gringo Loco's The Wrld On Lucha 2024, I'll continue to add more references. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EdgarCabreraFariña @CeltBrowne bringing you in on this discussion as you've commented on wrestler's in the past. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few notable mentions here:

https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/february-2024/viva-la-lucha-libre/

https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/exclusives/gringo-loco-i-feel-i-ve-overdelivered-ring-honor-it-s-some-my-best-work-ever

https://www.postwrestling.com/2024/01/21/gringo-loco-i-think-tony-khan-likes-me-i-think-hes-waiting-on-the-right-moment-to-tell-me-or-to-offer-me-a-deal/

https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/exclusives/gringo-loco-explains-how-he-became-base-god Thief-River-Faller (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's also just ranked on the Annual Pro Wrestling Illustrated Top 500. https://aiptcomics.com/2024/09/10/full-2024-pwi-500-list-revealed Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll admit that I see that the page is severely lacking info about his career to demonstrate his notability (being kinda similar in lenght to Jack Cartwheel, now that I see it), but from what I've seen, he has appeared on the independent scene and on the Mexican wrestling scene (which his ring name reflects) so it could be salvageable. Though again, it depends on that info being reflected on his page with reliable sources. EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we also dont see anything different over at the spanish language wikipedia in terms of sourcing. If we had nice sources over there, we could be a bit lenient here at English. But looks like https://es.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Gringo_Loco is just a copy of this English one (at least sourcing wise). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has no business being up for AFD. Meets GNG and Sigcov.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unfamiliar with this subject. Just happened to see this on RC. A quick search online turned up a number of sources which meet WP:SPORTBASIC. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 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 national flags of sovereign states. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of sovereign state flags

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

I have just now finished List of national flags of sovereign states, which contains far more information regarding each flag and provides several references on each entry. I do not see a reason for the gallery to continue existing since the flags list I have written contains the same information and then some. I therefore request this article become a redirect to the one I have made. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nice work! I'm hesitant to get rid of a page with 49,000 views in the last month because I know many people really just want the gallery, but there's one at https://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Sovereign-state_flags that I've added to the new article, so I don't think this one is necessary. Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the probably least disruptive option, especially if Commons already has a similar such gallery that's now linked to in the main article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment/suggestion about the new list since we're here, although not directly relevant to this discussion. The new list is nice for sure, but even on my modestly small laptop screen, I have to scroll over to see the whole thing. The refs (whose column is unnecessary huge for me) could probably go after the name in the first column, and the description is probably a bit overkill, contributing to the formatting issues, and might be more appropriate as alt text for accessibility. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur here. I'd suggest putting the refs in the description rather than the name. It's okay to just say the books are general references rather than footnoting each of them 193 times (WP:OVERREF). Also the newly added Official usage column seems entirely unnecessary, especially with no explanation. What's the difference between ensign and civil ensign? Between state flag and national flag? Why should a reader even care? It's clutter. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest leaving such comments for the talk page. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current gallery format is simpler and I often use that page as a reference for editing other flags, eg separatism. Centralismo (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Reywas noted, Wikimedia Commons already maintains such a gallery. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being simpler isn't necessarily a good thing. The current gallery page is completely unreferenced and devoid of prose or information. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The list page covers the same material but includes sources, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Uganda is missing on the new page. 108.160.120.147 (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I've now fixed this error. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to merge this article with the new page. Thanks Arief Azazie Zain (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, good job! Di (they-them) (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the list is already the encyclopedic version of it. The gallery is a better fit for Commons. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of national flags of sovereign states Artemis Andromeda (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would've just replaced this article with the list and moved it, but yes, redirect; good work. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 17:32, 15 September 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 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirmai Ghebremariam

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

Article of low relevance considering it is the biography of a living person and a current politician WP:BASIC. Alon9393 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 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 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT (merely an essay, I know!) says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. GhostOfNoMeme 22:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searches of Google Books and Google Scholar also yield nothing of value, either. Almost entirely just passing mentions in various years' issues of the Statesman's Yearbook which do nothing beyond confirm his role as ambassador, as in "Ambassador: Ghirmai Ghebremariam" in the list of diplomatic representatives under the entry for Eritrea. GhostOfNoMeme 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GhostOfNoMeme's searches demonstrate that WP:BIO is not met. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I’ve been able to verify that the subject has been ambassador to four countries. However, the coverage is bare bones. I’m leaving it up to the community to decide if he passes SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being ambassador to 4 countries isn't a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. Isha Sattar (talk) 07:15, 15 September 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 23:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Maricic

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

Article fails WP:GNG. One article is not enough. Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. It's not a question of whether the article is currently good. It's about the notability of the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to believe that the subject is notable? Simione001 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't raised the notability of the subject. You only commented on the current state of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated because it fails GNG which stands for General Notability Guidelines. If your suggesting there are more sources please provide them as i wasn't able to find any. Simione001 (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article. That is not the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only other secondary source I could find, i.e. not currently in the article, is [13] Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cant read that one but it looks to be an opinion piece about who makes the team of the season at the half way point. Do they address the subject in any great details? Any quotes from the player? Simione001 (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe some Australian user like @Matilda Maniac could advise us better on what should be done. Svartner (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him, so cannot advise. I rarely get involved in player articles, maybe a little for women players. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has been playing for a while now and there doesn't even seem to be enough sources to correctly document career stats. Chris1834 Talk 20:02, 17 September 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 23:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adecco General Staffing, Australia

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Article read like an advertisement before that material was deleted, but I did a before search, and didn't come up with much aside from company profiles on different sites; nothing in the way of actual new releases, press, etc. Seems like this should be deleted OR redirected/merged to The Adecco Group. If I'm missing anything, I'll gladly rescind. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 18:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of presumably dozens of subsidiaries of a Adecco, a massive international staffing company operating in 60 countries. Brandon (talk) 16:26, 15 September 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 European Congress of Mathematics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 European Congress of Mathematics

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

Non-notable instance of an academic conference published from Articles for Creation by User:TakuyaMurata (hence not sending to Speedy or Prod. Suggested outcome is a delete, or merge to the parent article. Sadads (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously, not every conference is notable but this one is fairly large so probably notable enough for Wikipedia. I get some other editors might feel differently. But I think we can at least agree European Congress of Mathematics is notable enough. Not sure whether my name is related to the question of the notability: if a concern is the conflict of interest, I am not involved in the conference. —- Taku (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you wouldn't merge this to the parent article? Academic conferences of 2000 people are not exactly.... prominent or of lasting public interest unless they are connected to something notable (i.e. a public declaration, something like a newsworthy public event (i.e. a bombing) etc). Its far different than conferences that include large negotations or notable outcomes (thinking something like 2017 United Nations Climate Change Conference), Sadads (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am not against the merger, although if the article were to be merged, it needs to be shortened greatly, obviously. As for the notability, I don’t think we should be discussing the significance, which is different. Because of the Internet, a conference such as this clearly has lost some of significance (since we can communicate much easily online today). The notability, on the other hand, should be determined by a relative position within mathematics. In terms of size, the conference is second only to International Congress of Mathematicians. We should draw a line somewhere and my view is that this conference would cross that line, since we can’t quite argue ICM is the only notable conference in mathematics, which seems too high a bar. —- Taku (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mathematics, Europe, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Congress of Mathematics. Information like the date the application deadline was announced or a tweet of pablum from a local politician is not encyclopedia material. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. European Congress of Mathematics is clearly a suitable page, but I have no clue why the 2024 installment would warrant a page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to European Congress of Mathematics. The series appears notable but i don't think each edition should have its own article (the previous ones don't and i can't see anything that differentiates this latest one (certainly not the current contents of the article). jraimbau (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to European Congress of Mathematics as argued above. It is odd that this page, written for a future conference, was created on the day the conference ended. When doing the redirect please update the main page to indicate that the conference is in the past. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kylian Portal

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

This article is minimally sourced, of little educational value [epitomises a 'stub', what with the entire article consisting of two short sentences], details an individual of generally low-notability and is primarily centred upon a single swimming event. As such, the article should either be significantly improved [current issues may be contextualised by the aforementioned lack of notability] or deleted. Perhaps this individual's name and/or likeness would be better represented by mention in the page created specifically for the 2024 Summer Olympics. SRob092 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 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 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough WP:RS PaulPachad (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RS [14], [15], [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more more [17], [18], [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG per Oaktree and passes WP:NOLY as well as a Paralympic medalist. Also, although article content does not determine notability, I will be expanding this within the next week. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:GNG due to the existence of WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Just because they aren't in the article yet doesn't mean this article should be deleted, and there is no need to WP:RUSHDELETE just so the article has to be recreated down the line. Let'srun (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Let'srun and in line with WP:NOLY. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 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!} 19:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UP T20 League

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

Another mass-created minor league which fails WP:GNG and WP:OFFCRIC. Oh, and I better nominate it for deletion, despite the threat not too! AA (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously listed as WP:PROD, not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage on independent sources to establish notability. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:24, 13 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Villapando

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this youth footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Draftification is an option. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too soon for an article. A child who does sports. Geschichte (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's one of the members of Philippine women's national football team and she's considered a public figure. I think there are enough sources to warrant a wikipedia page. Medforlife (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's a member of the U17 team, not the adult team. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Per previous. No need to delete. Chris1834 Talk 19:58, 17 September 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 Warrior Soul. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Arundel

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their accomplishments in media -- but this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as Spotify streams and YouTube clips, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS PaulPachad (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – Promotional piece with no reliable sources. I presume this is the same subject that had a deletion discission in July 2024, when an article had been nominated for appearing promotional - created using a different version of the forename, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arundel. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per reasoning provided by ResonantDis_tortion. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warrior Soul per WP:ATD. The subject may have an accomplished career with many achievements, but without reliable sources to verify then no article can exist. These sources indicate the Warrior Soul aspects of the article are verifiable: The Virgin encyclopedia of heavy rock, The rough guide to heavy metal, The encyclopedia of popular music. But without more WP:SIGCOV I do not see how the article can stay and Warrior Soul appears the best target as he's mentioned in that article. Happy to change vote if more coverage turns up. ResonantDis_tortion 09:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Bearcat, @Drchriswilliams, @PaulPachad. Would you support a redirect as an acceptable WP:ATD-R per the above sources? ResonantDis_tortion 10:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, but the process doesn't actually require me to personally consent to a redirect before a redirect can be implemented, because consensus doesn't require total unanimity. Even if it were deleted outright, anybody would still be perfectly free to create a new redirect from the redlink anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per ResonantDistortion's reasoning, with no objection to deleting it outright. No real claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC and I can't find any additional coverage in reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 14 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jael-Marie Guy

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

I am not seeing anything close to WP:SIGCOV for this youth footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification is an option. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Philippines, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are from reilable independent newspapers. Medforlife (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like? C F A 💬 21:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References #11 and #12 are from the Philippine Star, a major newspaper in the Philippines. Ref #13 is from ABS-CBN News, a major TV news provider, ref #10 is from The Tiebreaker Times, an online news website, which for me passes WP:RS and I use as sources myself on other articles. The rest are match reports and database records from soccer websites and thus fails WP:RS. As for those refs that do not fail WP:RS, these are, also, match reports with no WP:SIGCOV of Guy. It's like saying "Lionel Messi is notable! Look, I dug up match reports saying he played on that game!" Howard the Duck (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too soon for an article. A child who does sports. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's one of the members of Philippine women's national football team and she's considered a public figure. I think there are enough sources to warrant a wikipedia page. Medforlife (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's a member of the U17 team, not the adult team. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify – It looks mainspace-ready to me, but I'm not opposed to drafting. Svartner (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - very early in career. Good start to an article but if they stopped playing tomorrow, it wouldn't be worth keeping. Chris1834 Talk 19:55, 17 September 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 2020 North Dakota gubernatorial election. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Lenz

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

Non-notable political candidate – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Dakota. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sources reporting on Lenz, both local and national. Atubofsilverware (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about the election, rather than the candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have much to say other than I believe one of the two major candidates in a modern US gubernatorial election is notable. I would like to hear other editors' takes on this. Atubofsilverware (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an established consensus that no, people are not notable just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win. Even at the gubernatorial level, a person still has to either (a) already have some other preexisting notability claim independently of the candidacy, which would already have gotten them into Wikipedia on those grounds regardless of their success or failure in the election (see e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy was somehow a special case of significantly greater notability than most other non-winning candidacies, such that people will still be looking for information about her 10 or 20 or 30 years from now (see e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Even at the gubernatorial level, we simply don't accept losing major party candidates as "inherently" notable if they don't also pass one of those two other tests. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, that makes sense. A redirect seems normal then. Atubofsilverware (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 North Dakota gubernatorial election. Failed candidates for political office rarely if ever meet the criteria for notability per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Information about the candidate and their campaign can be added to the article about the election they contested. Bkissin (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the fact that some campaign coverage existed is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL, as every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. So the tests she would have to pass are either (a) she also has pre-campaign coverage evincing notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) she has a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidates. Neither of those are in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge the materials and citations about the campaign into the target article. Running, I’m afraid, is not by itself notable. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC) P.S. I took a sentence and two citations from this article, about the debate, and placed it in the target. I was BOLD. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the comments above. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 North Dakota gubernatorial election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurveySparrow

AfDs for this article:

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

I did a WP:BEFORE and did not find evidence that this company meets WP:NCORP. Mostly sponsored content/press releases/interviews. I'm not seeing any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Clovermoss, lack of WP:SIGCOV and the "Times of India" and "G2 Crowd" these newssites are doesn't count as reliable sources. Xegma(talk) 19:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of the above. Zero WP:RS PaulPachad (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They seems to be prominent player in the industry 2405:201:F00E:D018:F099:A5C2:E37C:40A3 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A previous instance of an article about this company was deleted at AfD in 2021. I can't see that version to compare, but the references in the present instance, created by a new editor, would have been available for that previous consideration of notability, and are brief interview-based items and funding announcements, insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find recent announcement-based coverage of their use of AI (Newswire PR), but I am not seeing the evidence of attained notability which would be needed to overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons presented in the first AfD. All the coverage since then does not meet the threshold of NCORP. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:56, 16 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss Rising

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

No reliable news coverage; should be redirected to Nightrage, which I did three months ago. Of the four sources on the article: one is a WP:USERG blog review (dead); the group's biography on their website (a WP:PRIMARY source); a metal music list site (a WP:PRIMARY source), and another WordPress blog review (also dead). Also didn't chart, so fails WP:NALBUMS all around. Ss112 18:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 19:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert to prior redirect per arguments already mentioned by others. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 11 September 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 23:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivart

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

Fails WP:ORG, only confirms the collective's existence Kolventra (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Arts. Kolventra (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS PaulPachad (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable sources with deep coverage. --The editing spirit (talk) 18:02, 16 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Prisco

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO. Most of the sources are about the business and/or based on what he says. Other sources are not reliable, such as a blog and Respect My Region which as no evidence of editorial oversight, takes user submissions and is a promotional fluff piece. I am fine with redirecting it to Priscotty as an WP:ATD option. S0091 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New Mexico. S0091 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would also nominate Priscotty for WP:NCORP also. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References appear to be from non-quality sites and are primary, interviews or profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business sources provide optimal information about Scott Prisco. Business Journal article Who's Who in Cannabis: Meet the CEO of Priscotty is credible with editorial oversight. Wikimaster3453 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "business sources" but there are tons that are not reliable and Who's Who in Cannabis: Meet the CEO of Priscotty is a Q&A interview which is a primary source and not independent. What he says about himself or his business cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note this editor is the creator of the article and tried to remove the AfD template from the article. S0091 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Business Sources" meaning articles primarily about Priscotty that do more than just refer to Mr. Prisco. Albuquerque Journal, Business Journal, KRQE, KOB, KOAT are all very credible secondary sources. Wikimaster3453 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the Santa Fe Reporter Wikimaster3453 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimaster3453 most articles are actually are not about him, they are about his company and have a mention or quote from him. To be notable the subject needs to have multiple in depth articles about himself, not just mentions or quotations. You also seem to have COI with the subject. The company may be more notable than the CEO. Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimaster3453 is now blocked for promotion/advertising. S0091 (talk) 16:29, 13 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese cricket team in Canada in 2024

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

I am fairly sure that this series is not actually going to happen. It was included in Cricket Association of Nepal's annual calendar at the start of the year, but no dates were ever announced, other than "September". The Nepal team will be in Canada for an ODI tri-series (16–26 September) and then a T20I tri-nation series (28 September – 3 October), but there is still no mention of a bilateral series beforehand. Canada are warming up with matches against the MCC. Bs1jac (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Nepal, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no mention of ODI bilateral series between Canada and Nepal, other than CWC League 2 and T20I Tri-Nation Series. It can't create a article of bilateral series of associated nations, on the basis of annual cricket calendar (possible, if it is a full member nations). Goodknowme (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look to be happening, and so no coverage about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't look like it ever happened. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AA (talk) 22:53, 14 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micromort (software)

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

While there is coverage, it seems to sufficient WP:DEPTH to justify an article (largely "we used this software"). Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Software. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Heisey & Fuller is a primary source, while the book source appears to mention the software only once. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to find sources as the micromort is a common unit in the field. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there does not appear to be a way to write more than a couple sentence article about the subject. Brandon (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines by not providing enough independent, reliable sources that cover the software in detail --Moarnighar (talk) 11:10, 16 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Baker

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

Draftify until better sourcing is found. I am not seeing anything close to WP:SIGCOV here. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Philippines, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources cited are reliable independent newspapers. Medforlife (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources address Baker in significant detail? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-player-profile/gabrielle-baker/pid-1030179 - This website includes several articles under her name

https://archive.md/w7rMK - More details about her varsity team

https://sports.tribune.net.ph/2024/04/01/filipinas-thrilled-to-face-koreans/ - An article when she was called up to senior national team

https://voi.id/en/sports/379103 - An article how she kept the goal well as they won the match 6-1 Medforlife (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not WP:SIGCOV. If there are WP:RS that is primarily about her (and not her team), please add that in the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's primarily about her as she was named All-State First Team awardee and her contributions to her team Medforlife (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four sentences about her high school career is far from the significant coverage required. The sources need to cover the subject directly and in detail. JTtheOG (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's one of the members of Philippine women's national football team and she's a public figure. I think there are enough sources to warrant a wikipedia page. Medforlife (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's a member of the U17 team, not the fully adult version. Please read and understand WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; she mwy be notable in the future, but not now. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - none of the sources listed above come even close to showing SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify – It looks mainspace-ready to me, but I'm not opposed to drafting. Svartner (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Not seeing the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG just yet. Draftify per the nom as a WP:ATD Let'srun (talk) 13:56, 14 September 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.

Deletion? Are you actually kidding me? As if our people hadn't already went through enough?? Now you want to censor what we have already suffered?? Absolutely not. I'm not allowing this. We have the right to, at least, have readers barely acknowledging what we're speaking up against.

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 or move‎ - both of which can be handled editorially. Please continue this discussion on the article's Talk page as a consensus to delete will not emerge here and neither action requires admin tools. Star Mississippi 02:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of the Ingrian Finns

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

WP:POVFORK of Deportations of the Ingrian Finns. Both articles cover the very same topic. Mellk (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Perhaps merging the two would be warranted, but I feel an article of this name has potential. Teaching in Finnish and Izhorian was also banned as the deportations were occurring, and the Forbidden Border Zone was established during that time as well. I'll admit I don't know much about the subject beyond that though. Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what there is to merge. The newer article only consists of a background section and aftermath section. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it appears I missed this. I mean merge the two articles under the name Genocide of the Ingrian Finns, primarily covering the deportations, but expanding on the repression of Finnish and Izhorian-language teaching, the repression of Ingrian religious institutions and intelligentsia, and the destruction of Ingria as a historical region? Expanding a combined article would likely take a long time, however. Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, History, Military, Finland, and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deportations were an instrument of the genocide, so the deportation article could be merge to this one perhaps? Velivieras (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:RM for this. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk, @Skynxnex, @Velivieras: Then perhaps this discussion should be moved to the merge request board? Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arctic Circle System merge is a valid close option for WP:AFD. Since the nominator still is arguing for delete an early close would be improper at this time with only two other people offering opinions. So at this time wait the ~7 days for it to be closed by an experienced closer or to be relisted if there's no clear consensus. Skynxnex (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Deportations of the Ingrian Finns into this one. They’re basically forks. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either way. It was a genocide, but that can discussed under either title. Compare with Deportation of the Crimean Tatars. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge the deportations article into this article as the genocide is the more general topic, with the deportations being one example. It gives more scope that way for further development / adding information which is relevant to genocide, but not strictly connected to the deportations.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 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!} 20:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almohad conquest of Evora (1191)

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

Reason: This event never happened. Évora was captured by Portugal in 1165 and was never reconquered by the Muslims, see ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] All the sources I gave are reliable and modern. The user who created this article and a few other people have already debated with me regarding this issue on the talk page of this article and others, for example in the Siege of Silves (1191) and stopped answering my replies after failing to disprove my claims. I will be addressing the sources they provided for this page. The first two don't say anything about this event at all, they only refer to the Almohad campaign of 1191, with 0 mention of Évora. The third citation is simply stating what the chronicler "Ibn Abi Zar" wrote, which is a primary source, so if we follow WP:AGEMATTERS, it cannot be used. I don't really have an explanation for the fourth source, however it contradicts more modern sources, so once again we should resort to WP:AGEMATTERS. The fifth source is similar to the third one, it is simply stating what a chronicler wrote but this time it's a different one, someone by the name of "El Édris". The sixth source does not state anything about this event at all, seems to be a case of WP:OR. The seventh and last source is the exact same scenario as the fifth. It's simply stating what "El Édris" wrote, basically another case of WP:AGEMATTERS. Javext (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Christianity, Islam, and Portugal. Skynxnex (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article adds nothing that cannot be gleaned from its title. And that fact is disputed. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my own searching suggests that this may be an incident of a chronicler accidentally recasting the Reconquest date as a date when the city was taken by a Muslim army. Seeing no modern sources for this supposed Muslim capture of the city in 1165, I would definitely invoke AGEMATTERS as the nom does. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, just a minor correction, it wasn't in 1165, but rather in 1191. Keep up the good work. Javext (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are. Good catch! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out another thing since I forgot about it. Even in the primary sources they only state that Évora and other cities were captured, maybe a case of sloppy writing or something like that. They give no detail about its conquest so even if it did happen, its just not enough to create a page. Javext (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i still wait for you answer i pinged you @Javext Tahanido (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to your comment right here.

Your comment: "you didnt explain who is this elidriss and my sources are considered secondary source even if they take a primary source on reference .when i used your source its only a fault sorry"

First off, "El Édris" was mentioned in YOUR source not mine. He was most likely an Almohad chronicler, though what he was does not really matter since we all know his works are considered primary sources. Your sources where his name is in aren't just using him simply as a reference, but rather they literally say "según el Edris" which in English translates to "according to El Edris". This means that the authors of these sources are not analyzing the primary works and doing their own research, but rather they are simply stating what Édris said, therefore citing the primary source in question or the ones where he was mentioned are basically the same thing.

I didn't understand what you meant on your last phrase, what are you even trying to say?? Javext (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let’s clear up this "El Idriss" mystery. I’m starting to wonder if you’ve discovered a secret Almohad chronicler that no historian knows about! Because, seriously, after asking about him seven times, you still haven’t told us who "El Idriss" is. I’ve checked all the sources—multiple times, mind you—and there’s no sign of an “El Idriss.” Are you sure you didn’t mix him up with someone? Maybe he’s a character from one of your dreams?

Let me help you out: the actual chroniclers from that period are Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Idhari, and Al-Bakri—you know, the ones with real historical credentials. If you’re going to claim "según El Idriss" in your sources, you’d better show us where exactly they say that. Otherwise, you’re just throwing around names like some kind of medieval fan-fiction writer. So until you can provide a single valid source mentioning this mystery man, I’ll stick to facts, thanks!

Secondly, even if this "Idriss" was cited, it wouldn’t change the fact that you clearly don’t know how secondary sources work. They’re used to analyze or build on primary sources, not create brand-new information. Historians aren’t just making things up—they rely on actual evidence. So, maybe learn how sources work before throwing random names around?

Lastly, I’ll admit, using your source was a mistake. yours just seem to come with imaginary chroniclers. Tahanido (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, personal attacks won't help your case, we are here to discuss about this page not to try to offend each other.

Now, I am amazed how you didn't even read your sources well enough to see where "El Édris" is mentioned, but no worries I can show you. First source where he is mentioned is in French and it states "suivant El Édris", page 153, line 10, see here Second and last, is in Spanish and it states "según El Edris", page 292 line 34, see here

"If you’re going to claim "según El Idriss" in your sources, you’d better show us where exactly they say that." What are you even saying? These are NOT my sources, these are literally yours.. I seriously do not want to be rude or anything but are you even paying attention, do you even know what we are talking about?

Second point. I clearly know how secondary sources work, hence why I am telling you that these sources you used are not preferred per wikipedia policy. The authors have done 0 work on the supposed conquest of Évora by the Almohads, all of them simply stated that, in english translation, "according to [Name of a chronicler (primary source)]" and then gave a name of a bunch of cities. The chroniclers were either "El Édris" as shown in the 2 sources I already gave earlier in this message, or "Ibn Abi Zar" as you can see here (your own source)

"I’ll admit, using your source was a mistake." Using my source, what do you mean???

Last point, EVEN if the almohad conquest of évora ever happen (which I strongly believe it didn't) you do NOT have enough information and detail to create a page about it. Everything you had is nothing that can't be gleaned from the article's title. Javext (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Javext: Just to note that everything after "If you’re going to claim" in the comment you responded to was AI generated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, I did find weird his comment but I thought that maybe he was using google translate so I didn't bother to point it out. Keep up the good work. Javext (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re confused: in this case, "El Idris" (or "El Édris") is not a historian. It’s referring to a city, not a chronicler. You're misinterpreting the context. When you see “según El Édris,” or "suivant el edriss" it’s referring to geographical data or a place, not someone giving a historical account. Tahanido (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how an author would say, in english translation, "According to (a city)" to state historical events.

It only makes sense that they are referring to a person. Javext (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, for want of a better phrase, AI-generated slop according to several detectors I have tried. Another has disagreed and says it it human-generated, so further input would be welcomed. Only two sentences in this entire article have not been written or refined by an AI, according to those detectors that believe it so, and the content is very suspect. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please note that Tahanido has now been blocked as a WP:BLOCKEVADE sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/بوكوس), so this article would presumably now be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G5, though I see that consensus so far is on deleting anyways. Even if no sock was involved, this was clearly a WP:POVFORK attempt based on previous unsourced edit-warring at Almohad campaign against Portugal (1190–1191). R Prazeres (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by sock, probably AI generated and there are reliable sources that say it was not captured.

RobertJohnson35 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article seems problematic as outlined above. It is most likely an AI hallucination.Andre🚐 10:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be nonsense?

Absurdum4242

Delete. The entire article is just nonsense. It's also worded extremely strangely in places. I mean, just look at the (extremely short) lead. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Barroca, Mário Jorge (2006). "Portugal". In Alan V. Murray (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. pp. 979–984.
^ A history of portugal. CUP Archive. 1947-01-19. p. 103.
^ Grande enciclopédia portuguesa e brasileira: ilustrada com cêrca de 15.000 gravuras e 400 estampas a côres (in Portuguese). Editorial Enciclopédia. 1959.
^ Stanislawski, Dan (2014-11-11). The Individuality of Portugal: A Study in Historical-Political Geography. University of Texas Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4773-0509-6.
^ Kaufmann, J. E.; Kaufmann, H. W. (2019-07-30). Castle to Fortress: Medieval to Post-Modern Fortifications in the Lands of the Former Roman Empire. Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-5267-3688-8.
^ Fiolhais, Carlos; Franco, José Eduardo; Paiva, José Pedro (2021-12-06). The Global History of Portugal: From Pre-History to the Modern World. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-80207-133-7.
^ Hyland, Paul (1996). Backwards Out of the Big World: A Voyage Into Portugal. HarperCollins. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-00-255556-2.

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 Bouhdida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bouheida

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

I couldn't find sources to add verifying this information. Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this Bouhdida? Geschichte (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bouhdida Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 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. Malinaccier (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Symes

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

BLP of a subject who does not seem to me to be notable, full of details of whom he worked with and various non notable films. The article creator put it up for speedy deletion a while ago but this was declined - I’m not clear why. Perhaps there are sources out there I haven’t come across. Mccapra (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some interviews and mentions but it's not really looking like WP:SIGCOV. Probably should have been deleted by the page creator's request 2 years ago, doesn't look like much has been added in 16 years, just cleanup/formatting. Which itself suggests to a lack of real sources with anything to add. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a LinkedIn bit, without coverage proving notability. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here2rewrite, hmm yes. Ingenuity, I see your point, but I think it's likely that the IP's edits are the agency's, logged out. I have no way to prove that, of course, so I guess we need to let it ride. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a few web host or social networking site. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 15 September 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. Malinaccier (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Palazzo

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Language, History, Geography, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages need more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a few papers on Google Scholar, but not much. No evidence of impact. Bearian (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than finding his books listed in the catalog of the Italian libraries, I struck out. I did try some Italian newspapers, but nil. The name is not uncommon, and following the links in G-scholar I don't think any of those were him. The ones I did see were theses by others. Lamona (talk) 04:10, 16 September 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!} 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Lapenna

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

Entirely unreferenced article. External links are to non-independent material. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. 4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, Law, Denmark, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Xegma(talk) 17:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eo:Ivo Lapenna is unsurprisingly much longer, and sources could be imported from there. —Tamfang (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have fixed up the layout and referencing issues, and article has been expanded with some basic additional sources and information found through Wikipedia Library. A fair chunk of information is missing compared to the eo:Ivo Lapenna and agree with other user that could be translated and imported in. AlphaLemur (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would withdraw but another editor has voted delete so that is no longer procedurally possible. I think GNG has been established based on the work by AlphaLemur, so consider this a change of my opinion to keep.4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 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. Owen× ☎ 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Ťapaj

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

Ťapaj has only played nine matches for MFK Ružomberok which last a total of 900 minutes so far. A source that looks the closest to significant coverage is Futbol Portal, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. Considering that almost no Slovak clubs are well-known outside their homeland, I don't see this article as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 11 games now, played yesterday. Current player who hasn't faded into obscurity. More importantly, I found lots of independent sources that address him - combined, this looks broad and in-depth: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] I stopped looking after finding a few. Also found a more routine news piece about being called up to Slovakia U21. [25] Pinging @GiantSnowman since you asked. Geschichte (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Geschichte improvements. Svartner (talk) 14:37, 17 September 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 Ghost Rider (disambiguation)#Television. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

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

Unnecessary incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB) of non-articles when IMO Ghost Rider (disambiguation) already takes care of all three entries. No incoming links. Redirecting it to the dab page as the (to me) obvious fix got reverted, so more discussion may be needed.

Entry #1: a redirect to a character list bullet point for a fictional character that had a non-speaking cameo appearance in the TV series
Entry #2: a redirect to a character list section for a one-season recurring character; it's debatable if this incarnation needs to be added to the dab page beyond the general character
Entry #3: a redirect to an episode list entry

– sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Disambiguations. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ghost Rider (disambiguation)#Television and redirect: Links there are already provided to the comics versions, which in turn have references to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. versions, but that disambiguation page does not include the direct links to the TV versions. I believe it would be beneficial to have those links as well. Daranios (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a fork of the other disambiguation. We don't need two. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents to Ghost Rider (disambiguation) § Television where these direct links to the AoS versions would be most beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated to the nom, they previously redirected while not merging any of the links. Merge all links. Gonnym (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the dab page and my nom, which indicate no merge (strictly) necessary. One link is already at the dab page, one is so trivial that it shouldn't be merged, and one is indirectly at the dab page via Ghost_Rider_(Robbie_Reyes)#Television. The reader will find everything they want via the general dab page already. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: Please review the merge statments above. I agree that merging those additional links is not strictly necessary as they can be found in a roundabout way, but for anyone whose interest starts from the TV appearance, it would be easier to have them. In my view that includes the brief mention, too. And if we can make life more convenient for one group of Wikipedia readers, why shouldn't we. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you, but I want to make clear that I am opposed to merging all, and I am opposed to this INCDAB existing, both of which Gonnym explicitly argues for in word and action. That's all. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost Rider (disambiguation) per nom – As a relative newcomer to the Marvel universe, when I look up a character I'm interested in seeing their history in the comics as well as in film or TV, so the main dab page makes sense to me in a case like this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 12 September 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 Cameroon–China relations. Unanimous consensus against keeping the page, and some support for the redirect as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cameroon, Beijing

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

Unreferenced for over 9 years and fails WP:ORG. Text such as "Visa to non-Cameroonian citizen can also be applied for at the Embassy and the procedure would take a few days (up to a couple of weeks) All fees can be paid in RMB." does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cameroon, and China. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cameroon–China relations (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These diplomatic headquarters articles gain notoriety over time, for the moment it can be maintained and expanded. Alon9393 (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to address how notability criteria is met. Gaining notoriety is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you making this identical statement in many AfDs. Please be aware this is WP:CRYSTAL – an article's presumed future notability does not matter. We aren't here to guess at what may or may not be notable a decade from now. GhostOfNoMeme 18:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alon was not a productive editor and has now been blocked indefinitely. The closer can safely disregard Alon's above opinion, since the user mostly wrote nonsense. Geschichte (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lists of personnel and payment instructions is not encyclopedic content. I don't see anything worth preserving. AusLondonder (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Embassies are not inherently notable and there is nothing notable about this one. The Cameroon–China relations article should mention the embassy, but a single sentence would suffice. GhostOfNoMeme 18:19, 15 September 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. As an aside, if you can't evaluate sources because of a language barrier that can't be overcome by language translation tools, it's best not to nominate the article for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Qingquan

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

I don’t see any notability based on what I can see from the article. I’m not sure if the sources contribute to WP:GNG, as I cannot read Chinese. Thanks. Lordseriouspig 10:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lordseriouspig 10:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a recognized and accomplished expert in his field as shown, among other things, by these two article-length profiles of him:

Sing Tao Daily News [26]
Science Net [27]

Note that he's a HK Bauhinia Star recipient, a second-rank honour but indicative of his importance. Oblivy (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, China, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above and the ones in the article. Also (with respect) I suggest the nominator consider using a translator (for example Google Translate inbuilt in Chrome) to check on the validity of foreign language sources before jumping into AFD in future. S5A-0043^Talk 06:59, 12 September 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 diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as a natural, unopposed ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Sierra Leone, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Sierra Leone, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as a {{R from list entry}} per all the other nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 11 September 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 Kurdistan Premier League. No P&G-based arguments to keep this as a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chwarqurna SC

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

Google News Yield no result, the given sources are database. I suggest a merge with Kurdistan Premier League could be a possible thing. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete or Redirect We added more References kfa

Although the club was introduced in previous References Best Regards.ChwarqurnaSC (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Chwarqurna SC(چوارقوڕنە) is a famous team in the Kurdistan Premier League . Amirfazlipour (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete per nom" when the nom suggests a merge? Geschichte (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurdistan Premier League as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete This is a professional team.Ana628 (talk) 08:29, 14 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Palmiter Bajorek

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

I have checked many references and find them to be a mixture of passing mentions and what Bajorek says. Otherwise this reads like a resumé. WP:ADMASQ and failed WP:BIO. The whole swathe of alleged references is WP:BOMBARD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that several of the sources in the article are primary and that others only make brief mentions of her but she is covered in a sufficient number of secondary sources to support notability. I am no expert in AI-related voice technology but some of the awards appear to be significant.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Technology, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has significant coverage in the AI Voice technology and her contributions/research have played a significant role in the AI voice technology which is covered in a sufficient number of secondary sources. She has also recieved notable language/speech/voice category awards from reputed Voice industry leaders. Her research has been referenced in few of the Language related articles: Mango Languages Smart speaker Techy.Sap (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Moon

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

Dubious notability, virtually no hits from RS in Google, seems to only exist to promote the article's subject Fastily 08:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Photography, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficent secondary RS. I'll be open to changing my mind if they can be produced, however. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has had a long history on the project and is an article that many editors have contributed to. I don't think it should be deleted without a fuller discussion. If that's the consensus, so be it but let's not delete this article as a Soft Deletion based on low participation. I think this is the first time I've relisted for this reason. I'd welcome a source review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - terrible sourcing. I’m not sure what this person has done. It’s borderline TNT. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 15 September 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:G5: Created by a banned or blocked user — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool

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

The article was created by a blocked sockpuppet Altonydean using ChatGPT or similar. The account behind the numerous sockpuppets has downloaded a lot of AI text (not acceptable on Wikipedia) and has become abusive when editors try to explain why it is not appropriate. In any case, the article of the Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool is not overly long and already has a spin off Liverpool Ministry. Southdevonian (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before the editor in one of their many sockpuppet accounts started using AI, they were blocked for WP:CV [28]. Large parts of this article are taken from websites, not cut-and-pasted but copied with minor changes of wording, that is, WP:CLOP. For just one example, the first four paragraphs of the Economic policy section is closely paraphrased from the website in reference 48. The rest of the section is closely paraphrased from two more websites. Sometimes a certain amount of close paraphrasing is permissible, but I think, even with attribution, this oversteps the line. Southdevonian (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a comparison of a typical paragraph.

Wikipedia article:

To address the financial instability, Liverpool began reducing public spending and paying off debts, known as retrenchment. Transitioning to lower peacetime taxation required an indefinite time, and income tax was central to achieving financial stability. Despite its unpopularity, income tax was abolished in 1816 after a successful campaign by the Whigs, which led Liverpool to cut government spending, borrow funds and increase indirect taxes to compensate for the lost income.48, 49

48 is a copyrighted blog [29] (49 is superfluous)

Original:

Reducing public spending and paying off its debts (a process called retrenchment) was a major priority for Liverpool’s government after 1815. Liverpool recognised that the transition to lower peacetime taxation would take time…..With the end of the war, demands for its abolition increased and in 1815 and 1816 the Whigs organised a national campaign against it. This was successful…. To make up the lost income, Liverpool had to reduce government spending, borrow money and increase indirect taxation Southdevonian (talk) 08:39, 11 September 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 was general agreement that the position was a notable one, and support for the assertion that a systemic bias resulted in a paucity of contemporaneous sourcing for the person holding the position despite her notable role. While this still leaves us with only minimal sourcing to support the claim of notability for the subject, there was no consensus to delete. Since this is a BIO rather than a BLP, the default action leaves the page in place. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

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

If there is any significant coverage of Lady Cardigan in reliable sources, I am not seeing it either in this article or in my Google Books search. All I see are genealogy compilations and that is indeed what the article amounts to for the most part. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't deny that we don't (or I don't) know much about the countess, but she was a Lady of the Bedchamber, for which we have a category. I feel we're a bit dismissive of female roles in society in past centuries, and that's one of the many reasons Wikipedia's gender balance is poor. Deb (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree with Deb. She had a relatively notable role in court. I wish someone with more knowledge or expertise could step forward and improve the article a little bit. Keivan.f^Talk 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But all three of us know that which role she held (and only for a few months, if I may add) is not what determines encyclopedic notability. The criterion (WP:GNG) is whether she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I do not see evidence of significant coverage. I also think that having a biography with 95% of its content being who the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law were is not doing much at all for the state of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-) You don't think that having all those children was an achievement? Deb (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a historian who considers it an achievement, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can measure a woman's level of notability by the number of children she has given birth to. But if indeed it was a notable achievement then one can cite a source and include the relevant info! Keivan.f^Talk 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Deb Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminator, could you please explain how Deb has demonstrated that the article passes WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way the article itself is written does not make the subject look notable enough. As nominator explains, writing about the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law, etc., does not make her notable enough for a standalone encyclopedia article. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trying to search on newspapers.com [30] but i can't access. 58.136.119.76 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and because she was the central character of a notable painting, England: Richmond Hill, on the Prince Regent's Birthday. Women of her time and station had a lot of influence without any formal power. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I added fascinating information about her family connections to the Charge of the Light Brigade and other famous descendants in British history. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that addresses WP:GNG concerns, i.e. the issue of her not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Her family connections and famous descendants mean nothing; see WP:INVALIDBIO. The only reason to have this article is if you, or someone, can prove that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm very conscious of the need to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, but it should be achieved by focusing on women scientists, doctors, engineers, activists and leaders. Not by keeping an article on someone who fails WP:NBIO that is virtually entirely describing a woman through the context of her husband, brothers, father and many children. Frankly, that's an insult to the goal of improving women's biographies on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the Lady of the Bedchamber during her time, a notable and high-ranking social position in the palace. This role may be equivalent to the Sang-bok rank in the inner court of Joseon. The Sang-bok rank in Korea could pass WP:NPOL as it was one of the highest positions in the Joseon inner court. The Korean monarchy had two courts: the royal court (which functioned like a parliament) and the inner court (the court of the palace). The internal court, headed by the queen, wielded both political and judicial power. However, I'm unsure if the Lady of the Bedchamber had influence similar to that of the Sang-bok. Nonetheless, Lady of the Bedchamber served as like the queen's chief secretary, which could be considered notable, and she was also a subject of royal artwork. Therefore, I believe her role is significant enough to warrant inclusion. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And which sources discuss her in detail as a proof of how exalted her position was? Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The woman of the bedchamber is Her Majesty's right-hand woman and plays a key role in making decisions about social engagements. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking about the position. I am asking about the woman who is the subject of this article. You claim that the position she held was "a notable and high-ranking social position". Very well. She must be thoroughly discussed in the sources then. Where are these sources that discuss Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan, in great detail? Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. She would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women, but the position is notable. Relinus (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is currently no consensus. Since there is disagreement over sourcing, can we get a source assessment? And, although half of the editors here are arguing for a Keep would editors consider a Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your assertion that there is currently no consensus, Liz. Which of the "keep" arguments do you find most convincing? Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody above makes an argument that any given source covers the subject in the depth required by WP:GNG. That there is likely no such coverage is indicated by the fact that the article content is almost entirely genealogical, in violation of WP:NOT. Her role may or may not have been influential, but that is speculation, and per WP:NPOL unelected political figures are not automaticatically notable (and neither are nobles, see WP:MONARCH). Sandstein 11:17, 17 September 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 Ting Tsung Chao. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Chao

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Taiwan. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ting Tsung Chao (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Albert Chao (traditional Chinese: 趙元德; simplified Chinese: 赵元德) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ting Tsung Chao as indicated by Cunard. I can't find any significant coverage, and the article doesn't have enough to satisfy WP:GNG. He's only a bit player at the redirect article but unless we need to make room for another Albert Chao this seems like the least-cost option. Oblivy (talk) 07:29, 10 September 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 Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso#2020. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Fada N'Gourma shooting

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

WP:News article, I'm unable to find WP:SUSTAINED coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso#2020 or Fada N'gourma#History, the former of which seems to basically be "timeline of the Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso". I think the city is perhaps a better target, but a mention should probably be added to the other. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Insufficient references. While this is a notable event, it does not really require a separate article. I think it should rather be merged with Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso#2020.

Mevoelo (talk) 02:45, 16 September 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 Ngouboua. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ngouboua attack

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

WP:News article, I'm unable to find WP:SUSTAINED coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ngouboua. Or redirect, it's already mentioned. There are some extra sources that could be added there from this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 10 September 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 04:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Nguyen

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. No secondary sources, only databases. He played only one game (5 minutes) in professional football. FromCzech (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. FromCzech (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 17:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Considering that the clubs he plays for are not well-known outside their country, I don't see any point of draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage in RS. Alon9393 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am surprised the article is as big as it is. Very few appearances on the pitch. Chris1834 Talk 21:02, 16 September 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of intercity bus stops in South Dakota

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. Also nominating the sister article List of intercity bus stops in North Dakota for the same reason. I found mostly maps of the stops themselves, though I fail to see how the bus stops in a list format provide notability. Conyo14 (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, North Dakota, and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conyo14, this AFD is not formatted as a bundled nomination so the closure will only affect the South Dakota article. You can't just mention another article in your nomination statement and have it be included. Please read over the WP:AFD instructions for nominating multiple articles and re-format your nomination if you want it to also be considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing not completed correctly was the "la|related article 1". That has been rectified. Conyo14 (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Conyo14, you're good. By the way, I see hundreds of AFDs and I'd say 75% of bundled nominations from 1st time nominators are incorrect. It's not complicated once you know what to do but it seems to stump even experienced editors. Maybe we need to improve the instructions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some closers might not even notice, so it's fair. Conyo14 (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the formatting isn't for the closer's benefit but the tool we rely heavily on, XFDcloser, needs this formatting to recognize what articles the AFD covers. It's invaluable to us but it is very inflexible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:NOTCATALOG and nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Nunes

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

Subject fails GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where source talk about the subject in length and in dept for WP:V. Cassiopeia talk 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE does not provide any RS to bring this up to notable. Fails GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:26, 15 September 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 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical distribution of Slavic population

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

Multiple issues: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and insufficient sourcing. Incomplete presentation of statistics already duplicated in other articles. Florificapis (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Florificapis (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Marcelus (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Listing seems biased in some way as it does not even list all Slavic nations. This is only one of the problems this "article" has. A09|(talk) 09:01, 16 September 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. As noted by Liz in the relist, we delete or keep articles on the basis of sources that exist now, not sources that might exist later. Can be draftified or userfied on request to WP:REFUND for recreation once new relevant sources are found. Sandstein 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Myers

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

No significant coverage, all sources are databases or non-independent Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Young player who has recently made his debut, likely more sources will be available in near future. Mn1548 (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are really arguing for here seems to be a draftification. We can't have articles that don't have significant coverage at the moment (WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTAL). Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Professional NRL player who debuted and scored points (conversions and tries), sources present and can be added, a lot of other similar articles of young NRL players have less sources (e.g. Jesse McLean) ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see the point in deleting now and then re-adding when we have the end of year reviews in a month. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject simply fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant sources. No independent significant sources can be found in the article, per below assessment, and no significant sources have been presented here. Closing admin should note that Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL so if other editors cannot find multiple significant sources covering the article, then it should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though most of them are very aware of this, the closing admin should also note that the outcome of the AfD is not based on Keep/Delete headcount but the strength of the arguments. Keeping an article because the subject might be notable in the future is not policy based. For the article to be kept, the subject must be shown to have received multiple sources of significant coverage. So far, none have been shown to exist so it doesn't matter how many keep !votes there are based on possible notability in the future and the article should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Alvaldi
https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/players/fletcher-myers/summary.html		?	List of stats	✘ No
https://www.rabbitohs.com.au/news/rabbitohs-sign-fletcher-myers-immediately-until-the-end-of-season-2025	Team website	?		✘ No
https://18thman.com/players/fletcher-myers/		?	List of stats	✘ No
https://www.nrl.com/players/nrl-premiership/south-sydney-rabbitohs/fletcher-myers	League website		List of stats	✘ No
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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm supposed to be neutral here but I see hundreds of AFDs and we don't retain articles for subjects who might be notable at some future date. We judge by what sources are available today, at this moment and whether they can establish GNG. At best, if these sources don't exist, feel free to argue that the article should be draftified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clearly does not meet GNG, which is required for sportspeople. We also have CRYSTAL policy. None of the keep votes are based on PAGs and so should be discounted entirely. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This paywalled piece from the Newcastle Herald probably provides some SIGCOV, but I am struggling to find much else. JTtheOG (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of valid sources and evidence of notability. The keep !voters are basing the core of their argument on some iffy, speculative crystalballing, IMHO. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:38, 17 September 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 La Joya High School. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Joya Early College High School

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

This school has insufficient coverage to be notable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, hence, fail WP:GNG. A possible ATD is La Joya Independent School District. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to La Joya High School Same building, same personnel, just a different 'grade'. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas. CptViraj (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge per MrSchimpf. Skynxnex (talk) 05:32, 11 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markíza Dajto

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

I previously PRODded the article with the rationale being "Not notable - no in-depth independent coverage". It was deprodded by Mushy Yank with a note to look at the Slovak article. There indeed are some sources, but the only claims they make about this channel are:

that it became available on DVB-T (with some technical details), and
that Towercom resumed broadcasting it.

These two claims hardly constitute significant coverage, therefore I am renominating this article for deletion, this time at AfD. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:SPLITLIST of Markiza, a major Slovak network.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a list. It is an ordinary article about the channel – it is list-like because of its low quality. The article on Markíza also shouldn't be list-like; it even carries the "not a directory" improvement template. Janhrach (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPLITLIST is not only about stricto sensu list articles, but anyway, yes, the article is a list. It has an introduction but it is very much in the list format, as yourself admit. As for the rest, feel free to discuss it on the article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why would this article count as SPLITLIST. The article Markíza is about a different, sister, channel; not about the company (at least primarily).

Also, quoting from WP:NLIST: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." Janhrach (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Markíza as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 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 Blaxploitation. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxploitation (music genre)

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 2#Blaxploitation (music genre). C F A 💬 00:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. C F A 💬 00:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is simply a notable specific genre,, as sources, some available online, show (a one-click GNews search gives at least 4 reliable sources covering the topic). If this should be redirected, better redirect it to the film genre. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blaxploitation. There is no music genre of blaxploitation; there's only the film genre which relied heavily on funk music. Everything here should be represented as a sentence or two within the Funk page, and a large section within the Blaxploitation page, describing how the music chosen for blaxploitation films contributed to the ghetto chic aesthetic, and how that aesthetic in turn contributed to hip hop culture. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blaxploitation as it doesn't seem to be notable separately. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blaxploitation. There does appear to be some usage of it, but with little applicable depth. The soundtracks and scores of blaxploitation are of high important quality, the unique aspects of the music or its function as a genre seperate from funk or R&B and jazz other genres is not clearly stated in the article. If it can be, it can be fleshed out and we can see about it having a unique article that can stand on its own outside the films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinklab Group Limited

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

The subject does not meet WP:NCORP notability criteria required of business organisations. It is also a case of WP:TOOSOON because established in 2017, the company only received media attention that seem to be sponsored by the company after it won a minor road construction contract from a county government. All of the references used in the page are published within a month spanning July and August 2024. That might be an effort just to have a Wikipedia page Seminita (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Nigeria. Seminita (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable source from independent secondary reliable sources with significant coverage. [31],[32],[33],[34],[35]and [36] are enough to pass WP:NCORP

DXdy FX (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The news platforms where these articles are published are reliable sources but the articles themselves are not reliable because they are media campaign orchestrated by the company. It categorically fails [[WP:NCORP]] because all 13 references in the article are on just two topics of discussion and all have same thought flow indicating that the company planted all of them as media statements. All the reference are published between June and August and this article was immediately created. All these here [37][38][39][40][41][42][43] are on the minor road contract the company is handling. These references here [44][45][46][47] are all on single topic of the company pledging to implement the country's new minimum wage.

This article also has the problem of [[WP:TOOSOON]]. Established since 2017, it did not have a single record of project execution and media coverage until June 2024 when it suddenly woke up and acquired tons of media coverage. This company has to demonstrate visibility in the media for a reasonable period of time to show that its notability is not one-off. Seminita (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see press release here. There are no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Seminita’s assessment is apt. Best, Reading Beans 10:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: coverage seems to be mostly about one project. Otherwise, I don't see notability. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominators arguments VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 12 September 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 00:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Younes

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 18:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 99 games in the Qatari league. Does Qatar not have sports media? I feel that if deleted, it should happen without prejudice, i.e. the incoming links should not be removed. Geschichte (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find sources that could expand the article. Chris1834 Talk 20:59, 16 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelrahman Moustafa

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The player has 100+ games in pro level and is fully capped in the international level. He was also part of the 2019 AFC Asian Cup winning squad, which is a very valid reason to maintain the article. It would be easy to ỉmprove this article. Lâm (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—As stated above, this player has a clear and sustained professional career. To me, this seems obvious—certainly much more obvious than many other articles on this list. Anwegmann (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes on WP:GNG, sufficiently referenced and plays in the first tier of local football. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for having received several club and national appearances, and winning the 2019 AFC Asian Cup with Qatar. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Established multi-year career. Improve rather than delete. Chris1834 Talk 20:55, 16 September 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 00:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-man (footballer, born 1972)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are very bare of details, no real coverage. Chris1834 Talk 20:50, 16 September 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 1980 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 00:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-man (footballer, born 1960s)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1980 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Giant Snowman. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 11 September 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.

[1] Barroca, Mário Jorge (2006). "Portugal". In Alan V. Murray (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. pp. 979–984.

[2] A history of portugal. CUP Archive. 1947-01-19. p. 103.

[3] Grande enciclopédia portuguesa e brasileira: ilustrada com cêrca de 15.000 gravuras e 400 estampas a côres (in Portuguese). Editorial Enciclopédia. 1959.

[4] Stanislawski, Dan (2014-11-11). The Individuality of Portugal: A Study in Historical-Political Geography. University of Texas Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4773-0509-6.

[5] Kaufmann, J. E.; Kaufmann, H. W. (2019-07-30). Castle to Fortress: Medieval to Post-Modern Fortifications in the Lands of the Former Roman Empire. Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-5267-3688-8.

[6] Fiolhais, Carlos; Franco, José Eduardo; Paiva, José Pedro (2021-12-06). The Global History of Portugal: From Pre-History to the Modern World. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-80207-133-7.

[7] Hyland, Paul (1996). Backwards Out of the Big World: A Voyage Into Portugal. HarperCollins. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-00-255556-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]