Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 12	September 14 >

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 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!} 23:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 TAC Cup Girls season

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

I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the Talent League Girls competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates the six articles listed below.

On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG. This competition does not garner the level of coverage or references about its seasons and results to justify having season-by-season articles. I include the italicised caveat because, as this is the main underage recruitment competition in Victoria, the league's players and structure do receive some non-routine individual coverage, as any WP:BEFORE search will attest; but this coverage is mostly focussed on the league's function as an under-aged talent pathway. The seasons themselves (i.e. who won/lost, grand finalists, etc.) receive only passing WP:ROUTINE coverage. Existing references in all six articles are sparse, and either come from databases or non-indepenent sources.

I see no valid alternative to deletion, and that all content worth saving is already found on the main Talent League Girls page.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all part of the same bundle of seasons:

Aspirex (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 TAC Cup season (similar competition for men's football) there's a strong apparent case for deletion here. – Teratix ₵ 02:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The important (and, crucuially, sourced) information can be folded up into the main article. There isn't enough here apart from ROUTINE coverage to meet GNG. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 18 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 don't see a case for a speedy keep, but after two weeks here, there is no support for the proposed bundled deletion. Feel free to renominate some or all in three months. Owen× ☎ 10:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 VFL Women's season

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

I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the VFL Women's competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates eight articles.

On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG, and this competition does not garner the level of coverage or references to justify having season-by-season articles. Existing references across all nine articles are almost exclusively non-independent sources (from the league's website, clubs' websites and scores databases), occasionally with a brief WP:ROUTINE article about the grand final result; in particular, although the recent articles have healthy-looking reference counts, it's largely padded by short non-independent, routine articles from club websites which fill out the tables of coaches, captains and best-and-fairest winners. WP:BEFORE searches for "VFL Women's" and "VFL Women's season", Google-filtered for news and excluding afl.com.au results, and the results are a very thin collection of local newspaper clippings which are closer to human interest stories than sports WP:SIGCOV.

I see no valid alternative to deletion, and that all content worth saving is already found on VFL Women's and List of VFL Women's premiers.

I am also nominating the following related pages under the bundle:

Aspirex (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Competition receives WP:SIGCOV from what is left of the News Corporation legacy media, both at the statewide and local level. ProQuest has approx 400 keyword filtered references (there was 804 on my first pass through) for "VFL women" for the 2016 season alone, with spikes around the Grand Final and VFL/W Awards; across News, Fairfax/Nine and other Australian news sources. I find this AfD to be WP:POINTY and disingenuous. Merging these forks back into VFL Women's would result in an unweildy mess of an article. If the state-level competition of a women's Australian football competition does not warrant the little amount of referenced information currently present, are we WP:BUILDWP with useful encyclopedic content for future readers? Storm machine (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how exactly is this a Speedy Keep 2c (making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion)? Aspirex (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  the "2c" reference in my edit description was a shortening of my regular "2¢ plus GST" apologies for the confusion at your end. Storm machine (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Cool, thanks. Aspirex (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Storm machine's argument. I would be concerned if an article with 40+ references can be thrown away as part of a bulk AfD without any attempt from the nominator to improve it further. What is the end goal here? Gibbsy^spin 03:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the following: yes, 2023 VFL Women's season has 43 references (I assume that's the one you're referring specifically to); 37 of them are statements from club websites which serve to fill out this table of the names of captains and coaches, and this table of best and fairest winners. Every Australian rules football season from the lowest suburban/country level to the highest professional level could be written to at least this standard using a mix of club website references and WP:LOCAL newspapers, but that doesn't make them notable. What I can't find despite looking is genuine independent WP:SIGCOV of the VFL Women's which elevates this league to the point that it should have individual season articles. This is not a question of improvement – any article can be improved – it's a question of assessing the body of available references and reaching a determination of notability or lack thereof. My end goal is that this league be treated like all other low-coverage leagues in the Australian rules football Wikiproject: a main article with a history section, a list of premiers/grand finals, a list of B&Fs, and club-by-club information split out among the individual club pages. Aspirex (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions then: where are you stopping? Why do the VFL/SANFL/WAFL season articles exist in their current forms? Have any of those competitions had WP:SIGCOV to your standards since their heydays? Or has coverage retreated to the margins? If this is your baseline, then how does any sports non-top level competition fit into your ideal? Shall we inform the editors who maintain the AIHL, Hockey One, or Queensland and NSW Cup rugby league season articles of impending AfD?

The VFLW/SANFLW/WAFLW competitions easily pass WP:GNG and maintain enough coverage from what's left of the legacy media and enthusiast press to justify the level of content present to have season articles the same way that their men's equivalents do. Storm machine (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link some references? As I said in the nomination, my BEFORE searches have not yielded anything that looks like independent SIGCOV. I want to know what references you're looking at to draw your conclusion (and I'm sure the closer would want to see them as well). Aspirex (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently have nine non-AFL/club references for the 2024 season article, which given the amount of content compares rather favourably to say 2024 Carlton Football Club season to pick an article at random. Storm machine (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half of those nine are routine match reports on the grand final. A couple are routine reports on NSW teams playing games against VFLW teams. Cherny's article is the only one which is genuine SIGCOV, but it is a general article about AFLW and VFLW pathways - it offers scant coverage of its VFLW season. Aspirex (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go nuts and add more then: [1], [2], Storm machine (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valuable collection of encyclopedic data, that is well resourced with both secondary and, yes, some primary sources. What harm does it do to keep this stuff? And it is a fair point, VFLW gets a broadly similar amount of media attention that leagues like Hockey One and the NSW Cup. So bring on the AfDs for all those articles and more just because you're pedantic. Global-Cityzen (talk) 00:57, 20 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!} 04:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno

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

Tagged uncited for more than 15 years and only the 2 high schools have articles Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, Lists, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two notable high school entries to Roman Catholic Diocese of Fresno#Schools. Left guide (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more input since the identified target is solely a link back here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the thoughtful relisting comment made me think twice. Nothing meaningful to salvage here from an encyclopedic standpoint. Left guide (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 00:24, 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 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!} 05:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Tay

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

Notwithstanding serious BLP concerns, the subject simply isn't notable enough to have his own article. A Singaporean Chris Chan, if you will... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be non-notable as an online personality; coverage is mostly around some charges of distributing not so nice things online [3], I don't find much coverage from before or after this. I don't think that's criminal notability and I don't see general notability, due to the lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Driver

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Awards won are not major. IMDb would indicate WP:TOOSOON. Main claim to notability seems tied up with Swede Caroline, released only this year. Only remotely significant coverage about the person from the cited sources is the second one – a blog interview. An online search shows many sites that mention the subject's name, but they say nothing more about him. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself (specifically Brook Driver). I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MNLewis21: to avoid deletion, the article needs to show evidence of significant coverage of Driver himself – not Deadbeat Films or other affiliated topics – in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources currently cited in the article meets that requirement, as they are either non-independent (e.g. deadbeatfilms.co.uk), blogs (e.g. blog.finaldraft.com; see WP:BLOGS), or trivial mentions of Driver (e.g. deadline.com). Unfortunately, articles that are started through conflict-of-interest editing, as this one apparently was, are very unlikely to meet Wikipedia's topic notability and sourcing requirements, so usually end up being deleted. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do very much appreciate your help and clarifications. If anything, I'll be backing these up and, if possible, we can start fresh. MNLewis21 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MNLewis21 , it definitely doesn't work that way here as you thought. Gabriel (……?) 17:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NDIRECTOR. I might be open to draftifying if others are, since this is probably a WP:TOOSOON case, but I am concerned that a draft hanging out there would be too tempting for a conflicted editor who doesn't show understanding of our policies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swede Caroline: Some coverage for the short film that mentions this person, I don't find much of anything otherwise. Not terribly notable, yet. TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 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 merge‎ to Chumbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One weird trick

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

Seems to rely heavily on pulling together various articles on various people's ads that all use a similar format, but not necessarily proving that the phase "one weird trick" is notable. As an alternative we might be able to use the one weird trick of merging the article with chumbox, which is the ad format in which these usually appear. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Slate-sourced information into chumbox per nom. The Slate source is the only source that doesn't require synthesis to include into the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with chumbox, other refs are tenuous links at best. Jtwhetten (talk) 21:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Network Abuse Clearinghouse

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

I can find reference to email abuse and spamming, but nothing to indicate notability for the org/website. The book mentions are just the same as here, confirmation it existed. Has been deleted once (ancient history, pre CSDs) so didn't think PROD appropriate. Star Mississippi 20:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an organization that advocates for or against some thing does not inherit notability from the thing. Bearian (talk) 04:18, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Hensen

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this ice skater to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and this blog post, hardly significant coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned here [4], that's about all. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any significant coverage here to meet the WP:GNG, either through multiple internet searches or newspapers.com. Let'srun (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and comments. This one is an easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSKATE. Sir MemeGod  19:11, 19 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.

Mattias Männilaan

The result was Nomination withdrawn.‎ Svartner (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT due to lack of WP:SIGCOV.~~ The PROD contestor proposed several sources on the talk page, but they are all WP:ROUTINE match coverage and transfer news items, none of them providing SIGCOV of this athlete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Sufficient sources have been identified in this AfD. Nomination withdrawn. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Estonia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources that could be suitable for this article, only profiles. There are no reference sources in this article, except one and that's it. that's very weak. Alon9393 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here [5] please. There are dozens of articles directly about that person. Even a short documentary [6]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect Alon9393, and not to get off topic, you have been asked several times by several established editors on your talk page to maybe proceed with caution, or familiarize yourself with Wiki policies before engaging in afd and deletion discussions for a variety of reasons: possible WP:COI, WP:CANVASS, accusations of WP:PA, the speed of which you are making judgments in afd and deletion discussions, grounding your arguments and nominations on personal opinions, and subverting Wiki policies to ensure that an article you created was rescued through an AfD process so that it remained. ExRat (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ExRat Hello, Greetings, could you explain the question again, I don't understand it, are you asking me about Mattias Männilaan or about another matter, which does not come to this AFD. I await your response. Alon9393 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a question. You are within your rights as an editor to take part in this discussion. I was stating that your participation in discussions so far have rankled several established users who have brought up numerous issues with your behavior, possible violations, and your contributions thus far. That's all. As for Mattias Männilaan, see Pelmeen10's contributions — there are numerous articles from reputable sources provided now that constitute WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. ExRat (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I don't believe the nominator checked all the 79 sources that Soccernet.ee has about the person. And no, they are not WP:Routine (which would be scores and squad line-ups). Here's more interviews from saaremaasport Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have no idea, what about the sources also at ru:Мяннилаан, Маттиас ? Are those any good? Govvy (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references found by Pelmeen10. Several of those sources are not WP:ROUTINE. One Saarte Hääl article even has a link to a nearly 40 minute documentary on him. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. ExRat (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per specific example of WP:SIGCOV identified by other editor. Nomination withdrawn. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:34, 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA career ejections leaders

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

Not covered by enough reliable say as List of shortest players in NBA history and therefore fails WP:NLIST. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I found [7], [8], and [9], which are probably enough to meet WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see those but those didn't seem super reliable to me, maybe the radio one is. The 3rd one, Marca is described on Wiki as a tabloid so I would count that as reliable. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources presented above and in the article combine for a total of four sufficient sources (I excluded one overlap source). Furthermore, the nomination rationale is flawed since it's based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One can always find another article of a similar topic with more sources; we'd be deleting 99% of Wikipedia articles if that was valid grounds for deletion. What matters is whether this topic has enough sourcing available to satisfy WP:NLIST on its own merit; it does. Left guide (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this source from ClutchPoints, a site with a robust editorial policy that brings it into compliance with WP:RS guidelines. Left guide (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, List of shortest players in NBA history is probably one of the worst articles to look up to as an example of WP:NLIST. I examined it out of curiosity. None of the sources there count towards notability as independent secondary reliable sources (nba.com is a primary source), and the list itself is entirely synthesized. Left guide (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Basketball. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, I'd only consider the WZAK site reliable. Clutchpoints is always very bloggy and amateurish, mostly spewing trivial stats.—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: A source's reliability is based on how closely it aligns with WP:RS guidelines, not an individual editor's personal opinions about its format or the type of content it produces. Do you have evidence of ClutchPoints being unreliable? I've presented the site's editorial policy as evidence of reliability. Attached are Fadeawayworld's corrections policy, fact-checking policy, editorial guidelines, and ethics policy. Left guide (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEBYOTHERS is one guideline:
How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.
There's also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 437#ClutchPoints as an WP:RS. For notability decisions, I don't like to see all the source evidence scraping the barrel on reliability. —Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a background, the trend in newer sites is to hire inexperienced writers: Like at SB Nation and similar blog networks, the Maven site operators are independent contractors. They start with low base pay and no benefits, though company officials say they can make more if they drive traffic and ad sales.[10] In that Washington Post article, it covered Sports Illustrated and how Maven, now the Arena Group (which also owns Fadeaway World) was even hiring high schoolers to write. —Bagumba (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN as a grouping discussed in reliable sources. In addition to the aforementioned WZAK source, there's now reliable sources Yahoo, The Stein Line, and SFGate cited on the page.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if we say that ClutchSports is unreliable, we still have Yahoo Sports, SF Gate, and WZAK providing significant coverage of this grouping. As such, the WP:NLIST is met here. Let'srun (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NLIST as far as I can tell. I definitely believe the subject matter received significant coverage, even if a sports database is not keeping this as an up to date stat anywhere. Actually, someone should suggest/request it at Basketball Reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 18 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!} 23:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah F. Russell

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

Delete per WP:GNG. As per new policy, unless otherwise notable, new Article III Judge articles are incubated in draft space until the individual is actually confirmed by the Senate. Additionally, a draft article already exists for this individual. So this article should not be moved, but should simple be deleted outright. Safiel (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nom has noted, federal judicial nominees aren't inherently notable, and the WP:GNG is not met here due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and comments. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I agree with nominator's comments, did this editor not see that there was already a draft in waiting? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alptekin Aydin

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

A healthcare practitioner who runs a small business with some legal consulting on the side. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC nor GNG. Created by a single-purposes account, and the content leans towards pitching for business. Sources are mostly routine listings, youtube videos and website that aren't independent of the subject. Klbrain (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main notability claim seems to be known for his work in neuromodulation therapies, including the development of QEEG-guided personalized AI-based neuromodulation therapy (QPAN), but I haven't found any evidence that he's known for that at all. This google scholar profile is someone else. Searching for his name and "qpan" gets zero hits on scholar, four hits on google (two of which are his own website). -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this guy is definitely a fraud. Seems like wikipedia was only created to push his popularity and/or boost business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.38.156 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a lot of unreliable sources like YouTube, his own website, and blogs, but no reliable sources. If he’s notable for fringe theories, I don’t see that either, so there’s no sense in moving or redirecting this page. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 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 20:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise and Hell

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

The merge discussion at Talk:Paradise and Hell#Merge with The Haywain Triptych came to the conclusion that the page is a misattribution, but not one that is discussed in reliable sources and hence is better deleted rather than being merged or redirected. Klbrain (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Klbrain (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other discussion. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that deletion is in order per the merge discussion. This article is based on one questionable source. Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 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 20:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeetpedia

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

Unclear notability, and the sources cited may be fake; at least they link to the wrong pages. Batrachoseps (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, Websites, and India. Batrachoseps (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, used sources are completely fake.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 22:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is literally just an article about what appears to be some random person's Wordpress blog. The cited sources are fake too, as per @Tanbiruzzaman. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure if it’s fake, but there’s certainly lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maddi Wilde

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. A few transactional announcements (2023, 2024), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I originally reviewed this article and passed it because a brief search for sources I did found 1 2 plus the articles listed in the nomination, all of which are secondary sourced articles about her, and include more than trivial content. Some of them are based around transfer announcements, but they all contain more than a passing mention with content such as quotes and information about her as a player. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The routine transactional announcements have two sentences of coverage each, with the rest being quotes. Every mention of Wilde in the OneFootball article is a re-hashing of something she said while the WSLFullTime article is another routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm missing a WP:NSPORTS policy here but what is the policy that says articles about transactions don't count towards coverage? I would also dispute the characterization of the OneFootball article. It's an article focusing on coverage of things she said and her performance on the field as well as her relation to the team, she is the primary subject of the article; I can't really see anything that wouldn't make it WP:SIGCOV. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the subject are not significant coverage. We want to see what other people say about Wilde, not what she says about herself and her team. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is nowhere close to the IRS SIGCOV required by NSPORT. The OneFootball article has zero secondary independent coverage of Wilde: every single sentence is either reporting what she said or is about something other than her. And on top of that it's also a reprint of a FAWSL piece, so it and the routine transactional announcement count as ONE source of non-GNG coverage. Not to mention that FAWSL appears to be SPS -- it's essentially a blog written and edited by one person, and such sources can NEVER be cited in BLPs. So in effect we have no RS coverage at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay, not much else to add. Note that Wilde is young and may become notable in the future so no prejudice against creating again should she gain some significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Haoran (footballer, born 1993)

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

The claim to notability, playing 11 games in League One and a few minutes as a substitute in the highest league, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ning Weichen

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

The claim to notability, playing 17 minutes in the Portuguese second tier and 2 minutes in the Chinese Super League, as well as some on lower tiers, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, China, and Portugal. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, very minor appearance in China's top league. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 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 the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Ziru

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

The claim to notability, playing 25 minutes in the Chinese Super League and some on the third tier, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Torneo de Copa 2018–2019

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

I could not find significant coverage of the topic or reliable sources, the article only has a mere existence. Alon9393 (talk) 16:16, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Incomplete with zero sources. It may be redone in the future, but now it is a case for WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content, and not part of a series - Torneo de Copa does not even exist. Geschichte (talk) 03:11, 19 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 Procedural close‎. as the nominator has been blocked for their behavior in AFDs and no editor has weighed in here yet. No penalty against future nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Diario

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

I can't even find a reference that talks about this medium and without references or encyclopedic context there is no way to establish notoriety. Alon9393 (talk) 16:19, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 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 18:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boeraans

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

Doesn't seem to exist in this form and potentially a nationalist fiction by the creator. The only mention of "Boeraans" in reliable sources is here which stated Boerestaat Party Robert van Tonder used it to describe certain types of Afrikaans. The academic sources Taalportal does not describe any such dialect grouping as seen here. All cited websites in previous editions did not contain any significant material and seem to be Afrikaner nationalist proposals rather than sources describing actual language use. MSG17 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and South Africa. MSG17 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources in the art, and even assuming that the one sourced noted is reliable, it’s still original research, which we have never published. If and when academic papers start to discuss this alleged dialect, then we can talk. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could find quite literally nothing about this. Maybe a WP:HOAX? Sir MemeGod  16:28, 20 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 Africa (Toto song)#Weezer cover. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa (Weezer cover)

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

Per WP:SPLIT and WP:NCOVER, which has been misinterpreted persistently. The statement reads: "Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably detailed based on facts independent of the original."

The article is not "reasonably detailed" to claim a split from Africa (Toto song). In fact, if you visit Africa (Toto song)#Weezer cover, you'll read the same content written at Africa (Weezer cover)#Release. Then we have a music video and chart sections. Nothing here indicates content that cannot be on the main page. NCOVER was specifically created for articles like The Star-Spangled Banner and The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston recording). The Houston cover is independent of the US anthem because it has multiple facts about its performance, including being a charity single. We don't split covers merely because they were released and become more or less notable than the original version, including but not limited to Don't Cha (The Pussycat Dolls song), I Will Always Love You (Whitney Houston song), Fever (Beyoncé Knowles song), or American Pie (Madonna song), among thousands of examples. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: there is more information in the standalone article than is currently included in the original section, namely about the music video and charting, but all of that could be included in the original and it wouldn't take up so much space as to cause any issues. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially if someone rewrote and streamlined the prose a bit, which is pretty rough right now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Africa (Toto song), and some protection may be necessary to prevent a reversal by those who have interpreted the policies incorrectly. Yes, there is some minor encyclopedic info on this Weezer version, but the nominator is correct on why it should not have its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel this is being held to a higher standard just because this is a cover. Probably due to the old guideline that was around for many years that covers don't get their own articles. Well, times have changed. In fact, in the cited guideline, it pretty much tells us to do the same thing we do for WP:NSONGS. Nothing indicates to hold a higher standard. If this was an original song, no one would even think of putting this in AFD. Keep in mind that Weezer's version of "Africa" was a big hit in its own right. It's not "just another cover" as being suggested. MoonJet (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a "higher standard" as much as its just an "obvious merge target" due to the points of WP:MERGEREASON (overlap in content, short song articles, etc.) And the music Wikiprojects constantly discuss the handling of cover songs, so its not like its obscure outdated guidance or something. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is no reason this can't or shouldn't be covered within the Africa (Toto song) article. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 19 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Clement Daniels

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

Only one, primary, source in article, no significant sources found during WP:BEFORE check. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 16:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Mevoelo (talk)Mevoelo 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I independently confirmed that before search. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to be dry of coverage from a search, I'd say that they fail WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  15:23, 20 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 18:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish organised crime in Great Britain

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

At the moment the article does not have enough sources but as an alternative to deletion maybe it should be merged into Gangs in the United Kingdom or Crime in the United Kingdom? Unless anyone likes to add more cites and maybe expand it? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Due to paucity of sources, there is nothing to merge. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly notable enough to merit a standalone article, and very little to merge per Bearian above. Discussion of Turkish organised crime in the UK has some WP:SIGCOV (although much of it is the Daily Mail – an unreliable source: WP:DAILYMAIL) but nothing significant that couldn't be, or isn't already, in Gangs in the United Kingdom. GhostOfNoMan 13:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find many reliable sources, I also wouldn't merge per Bearian. Sir MemeGod  16:24, 20 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tabarna

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

If this is true it should probably be merged - but to where?

However as it was tagged uncited a decade ago it might be false it which case it should be deleted. I am not really competent to judge whether the possible sources I found such as https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2016-133-409/html are reliable but I am sure one of you knows Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can be sourced and I will probably do so soon. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Chidgk1 (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's currently sourced, and there are a lot of other sources discussing the term here and here. The most relevant question would be whether this is virtually a WP:DICTIONARY entry, but looking at the multitude of sources, there are quite a few of them that dive deeper than its mere etymology, such as this, this, and so on. Aintabli (talk) 18:20, 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 List of fashion events#United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fashion events in the United States

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

I don't see any reason for this list to be split from List of fashion events. I propose merging the content to the main article. Patientia1 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Fashion, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge The list is already at List of fashion events#United States so just do it and redirect. This is so obviously duplicative and unnecessary you don't need to pull others in unless someone objects. AFD is typically not the place to propose mergers either. Reywas92^Talk 17:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I will. Not the first time that I have been told to be bold here, I'll get better. Patientia1 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did it. Not sure if I need to do with this now. Patientia1 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patientia1, you shouldn't have redirected this article while it was the subject of an open AFD discussion. If you want, you can withdraw your nomination and this discussion can be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 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 18:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ōtākaro FC

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

This relatively new youth-only football club fails WP:GNG; there is no WP:SIGCOV of the club in independent, secondary, reliable sources. (It may just be WP:TOOSOON since this club isn't yet two years old, so I would support draftification as an AtD if other editors agree, but deletion is also an appropriate outcome.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's WP:TOOSOON fails WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 16:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. It's merely a football school. Svartner (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sigcov. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while I do agree that they probably fail WP:GNG at the moment, I do see some potential notability coming from them in the future. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Sir MemeGod  19:56, 19 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satya N. Gupta

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

No indication of notability per WP:NBASIC. C F A 💬 14:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Transportation, and Haryana. C F A 💬 14:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of any notability, WP:GNG or otherwise. (Also, so poorly referenced that one wonders where all this information came from, but that's not a matter for this AfD.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's likewise a lot of unsourced information in article creator's Ravindra Kumar Mishra, who like Mr. Gupta works for both SAAM CorpAdvisors Pvt Ltd and the ITU-APT Foundation of India. Wikishovel (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this article is kept, it should be moved to Satya N. Gupta, see WP:TITLESINTITLES. It's unclear why the title "Dr." is used, since the Centre For Electronics Design And Technology where he did his postgraduate studies doesn't appear to award doctorates, and the article doesn't mention an honorary doctorate. Wikishovel (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. The best I could find was passing quotes from him in the Business Standard: [11], [12], in articles about technology. Wikishovel (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent coverage. Cortador (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, it expands the coverage of notability, my position is to delete or send to draft. Alon9393 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mid-level government appointee/official; fails WP:NPOL. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject does not seem notable and does not have enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 16:57, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [13]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Jamaica Gleaner piece reads as promotional rather than as journalism. Sandstein 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WalesOnline source is essentially a promotional interview. Nothing else presented or found remotely meeting RS. BusterD (talk) 04:44, 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. Star Mississippi 13:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Box Cricket League

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cricket tournaments that clearly fail WP:GNG. Just because they were in TV, that doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Cricket, India, and Punjab. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability isn't inherited. AA (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:32, 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. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Sadik

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Potentially notable but currently no indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 12:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Judaism, and Israel. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record too meager for WP:PROF; published reviews of his books too meager for WP:AUTHOR (I found only one review on JSTOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 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. ✗plicit 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apostate Prophet

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

None of the given sources are reliable (YouTube, Reddit, etc.), so nothing to contribute to WP:GNG in any way. A quick WP:BEFORE only gives an interview to Jewish News Syndicate (primary, doesn't count for notability) and a report on one of his presentations by edhat.com. I am not sure whether that last source is reliable, but it doesn't seem to be enough for GNG either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Germany, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is just no reliable sources even close to providing notability for this subject. No evidence of GNG whatsoever. Thismess (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the content added three days ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am discounting the addition from several days ago (per relisting comment) as it is about the aunt's death, not a secondary-sourced discussion of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizardJr8 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 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. I'm closing this discussion as Keep based on consensus and also the fact that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sierra Bullones

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

Reason This page does not meet Wikipedia's notability and content standards for historical events. The article lacks reliable sources and citations to verify the claims made about the battle. Furthermore, the page has not been expanded or maintained to provide substantial and detailed information about the event. Given that the topic does not appear in notable historical references or publications and lacks significant coverage from academic or reliable sources, I believe this page does not fulfill the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Tahanido (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that 7 cited sources (including the Royal Academy of History, the University of Valencia, diaries of people who participated in the war and the Cambridge University Press) are enough to verify that this event happened and there are no reasons at all to delete this article. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Morocco, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was surprised how nonsensical this rationale was until I realised it was 100% AI-generated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:44, 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 keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Cigarette Company

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

cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here. In addition, the article has not been updated for a long time Moarnighar (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems like this company has decent news coverage in local sources. The article was just recently created in April 2024. Rainsage (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added more info & citations to the page to make its notability more obvious. the company has been mentioned in coverage of Zimbabwe's tobacco industry, including articles about smuggling, a British American Tobacco scandal, government corruption (the founder is related to Mugabe), etc. its various actions have been extensively covered in local news sources. Rainsage (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is currently under ANI review for questionable editing behavior. -- GreenC 17:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensively covered n Zimbabwe, with a widely reported investment from China, and a history of scandals. Article already has significant coverage (plus others exist) including:

Chinese Tobacco Giant Enters Zim Market [14]
Up in smoke: Cigarette company Pacific enters business rescue after ZIMRA hits it with a US$19m tax bill and garnishes bank accounts [15]
Pacific Cigarette Speaks Out on Controversial Business Issues [16] <-- not currently in article
Zimbabwe: China Ready to Seal Investment Deals [17] (paywall, another version here)

Oblivy (talk) 05:04, 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. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Almaský

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

The claim to notability, playing 239 minutes on Slovakia’s highest level, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 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. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Yanlin

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

The claim to notability, playing 8 games in Hong Kong, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on insufficient references. Mevoelo (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Subject fails GNG --- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:58, 20 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 12:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libor Koníček

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

The claim to notability, playing 142 minutes on Slovakia’s highest level, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 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 12:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hao (footballer)

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

The claim to notability, playing 111 minutes in the Chinese Super League, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Xegma(talk) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Sir MemeGod  19:57, 19 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 keep‎. Per WP:SK#2, making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any.do

AfDs for this article:

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

cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Moarnighar (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Software, Websites, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources brought up in the last AfD (which was from late July, a little less than two months ago), which @Moarnighar should address. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Verge and TechCrunch are highly reliable digital and technology media, my position is to maintain, and they also have other independent and reliable sources. Alon9393 (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per abundance of sources that easily satisfy the GNG. NCORP does not apply, per previous nomination. More importantly, this article had just been kept. NOT ONE person supported deletion in the previous round, create a strong appearance of FORUMSHOPPING in this second round right after. Frequent nominations are disrespectful to the people who bothered to answer in the previous round. Disrespectful both of their opinions and of their time as Wikipedia volunteers! gidonb (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got reviews in PCMag, TechRadar, which combined with the MacWorld review mentioned in the previous AfD, shows a clear passing of WP:GNG. I'd stop with the pearl-clutching though, since seemingly these sources weren't even brought up beforehand - I appear to be the first one to find them, and the ones demonstrated previously are rather weak. Furthermore, the company categories and mentions of funding must be removed - the app is notable, yet the company itself fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failing notability doesn't mean content can't be merged into another article. In fact that's one of the ATDs. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article should fundamentally be about its subject. I'm not going to randomly start talking about Nintendo's fiscal budget when in an article about Super Mario 64. Things that are solely about the company and not the software are off topic, this is about how the software was developed and its functionality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't funding a part of how software is developed? This is the only software the company makes. And I would talk about how much of Nintendo's budget was used for SM64 if such information was available. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator is currently under ANI review for questionable editing behavior. -- GreenC 17:24, 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 2034 FIFA World Cup#Venues. ✗plicit 12:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qiddiya Coast Stadium

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

It's WP:TOOSOON and it is set to be built for 3 years from now.

I'm also nominating the following:

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2034 FIFA World Cup#Venues – To avoid recreating the article unnecessarily. Svartner (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
part merge and redirect to Riyadh. Svartner That tournament is way off. Considering the city/town they are building in, I feel that article would be a better choice. It could be notable in the future, but that is a long way off and also running WP:CRYSTAL. @Miminity: I really don't think this is the best bundling because I feel King Khalid University Stadium needs a different venue article, that being Abha. Govvy (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the relevance of the topic is being one of the venues for the 2034 World Cup. Svartner (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner: And when they are done with the world cup, they will be used for other football clubs, then there is the multifunctional use. Other sports maybe played at these venues, so redirecting to where you said doesn't help those. etc. Govvy (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, support 2034 FIFA World Cup#Venues as the target. @Govvy: Before the World Cup even starts, I'm most certain the stadiums will have full-fledged articles, no later than the date the construction is finished - which negates the concern that the redirect target might change. PS. If consensus is reached here, the same action may be taken WP:BOLDly to other stadiums that don't exist yet such as Neom Stadium. Geschichte (talk) 03:09, 19 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 12:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny K. Davis

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

References do not pass WP:SIRS so fails WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and lacks critical mass of WP:RS citations. Per the nomination, I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:02, 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 the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrenceburg Junction, Indiana

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

Baker is seemingly less than accurate about labelling things "villages", and it's clear from looking at the maps and aerials that this is, as one might expect, a railroad junction. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 6 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!} 06:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not a community, but a rail junction, as per USGS maps: [18]. Nothing to see here and there never was. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:50, 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 merge‎ to New South Wales Institute for Educational Research. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Institute for Educational Research Award for Outstanding Educational Research

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

No sources when searching in Google news, books and Scholar. Sources 4-11 merely confirm winners but are not significant coverage about the award itself. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't delete it completely because it is referenced, but it could probably just be merged into the New South Wales Institute for Educational Research page. 2024 is Underway (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New South Wales Institute for Educational Research as above. Bduke (talk) 00:16, 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. This is an article I would really like us to Keep but there is a clear consensus among editors to Delete this article. Unfortunately there is no consensus for an ATD like a Merge or a Redirect. Interested editors can always try writing a better article in Draft space that hopefully can overcome all of the problems pointed out here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Gong

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [19] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. No evidence yet of significant achievement WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, Puerto Rico, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm very much in favor of showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, but the pedestal needs to be something they are already standing on, not something we place in front of them as an obstacle to trip over. She has not yet had the impact in post-student research needed for WP:PROF; although people at this point in their career can sometimes pass, doing so typically takes work with extraordinary impact and major prizes. Instead she is on a promising academic career track and if she keeps it up I would expect her to pass WP:PROF eventually, but eventually is not now. That leaves the IMO accomplishments and Schafer prize, which are separate enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E but would require in-depth coverage of her accomplishments in independent media for WP:GNG-based notability. I don't see that independent coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, I agree with all of the above. Like virtually all assistant professors, this is WP:TOOSOON.Qflib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After an unsuccessful search for independent news coverage, I have to agree with the delete !votes. Spacepine (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as David Eppstein notes she has IMO accomplishments which don't have in-depth coverage but do have a couple of sentences in three reliable secondary sources. Agree she doesn't have enough yet for WP:PROF but may for WP:GNG depending how notable the math olympiad accomplishments are. Nnev66 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not about significance of accomplishments at all. It is about coverage of those accomplishments in multiple reliable sources, each published independently of the article subject and the events they describe, and with in-depth coverage of the article subject. What sources do you think contribute towards that criterion? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the two I was thinking of. I found a third but didn’t add it to the page because I wasn’t sure it would matter. Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I saw someone added a NYTimes reference which I added to my list below. I changed my recommendation from “Weak keep” to “Keep”. There has been much better sourcing since the beginning of this discussion so I encourage folks who voted earlier to have another look. Nnev66 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entirety of the coverage in the NYTimes about Gong, a sentence only half about her: "Since then, two female high school students, Alison Miller, from upstate New York, and Sherry Gong, whose parents emigrated to the United States from China, have made the United States team (they both won gold)." That is definitely not an in-depth source in the sense required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a second sentence later on: “Ms. Miller, who is 22 and recently graduated from Harvard, and Ms. Gong, 19 and a Harvard sophomore, both cite Ms. Wood as their role model.” I had noted earlier that none of the references I found have more than two sentences about Gong - you had asked me to list the reliable secondary sources so I did. My original question was whether IMO achievements are notable - they have been covered in top sources. Nnev66 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in the context of an AfD, means that there exist reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not merely that "they have been covered in top sources". So you found a second half-sentence in one source; two half-sentences is still not significant coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These four references have more coverage of the subject. Three were written to highlight winning the Alice T. Schafer Prize. Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timmerman, Michelle B. (December 10, 2010). "Sherry Gong". The Harvard Crimson.

"Sherry Gong named Clay Olympiad Scholar". Clay Mathematics Institute. June 27, 2005. Archived from the original on 2012-05-11.

"Alice T. Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman 2011". awm-math.org. Association for Women in Mathematics.

"Math In The News | Sherry Gong Receives 2011 Alice T. Schafer Prize". Mathdl.maa.org. Mathematical Association of America. 2011-01-14. Archived from the original on 2012-03-08.

Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGuire, Annie; Collins, Donald (24 July 2002). "Mind-boggling games as the whiz-kids limber up for Glasgow Maths Olympiad". The Herald. ProQuest 332893451.

"Rising Stars". Science. 317 (5842): 1153. 31 August 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5842.1153c.

Rimer, Sara (10 October 2008). "Math Skills Suffer in U.S., Study Finds". The New York Times.
Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A coverage in Chinese media was added.
"美国华裔女孩5次参加国际数学奥赛3次拿奖". news.sohu.com, 2007-08-12.

24.107.3.211 (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.107.3.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is Sherry Gong's mother. I saw your discussion about media coverage of Sherry Gong. I will not vote because of the conflict of interest, but I would like to contribute some information about in depth coverage about her that was in independent media in Puerto Rico, specifically, El Nuevo Dia (Puerto Rico's most circulated newspaper, https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=El_Nuevo_D%C3%ADa) and The San Juan Star (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=The_San_Juan_Daily_Star).

This coverage haven't been put online, but I have photos of the articles:

1. August 2, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 22. See

https://ibb.co/FqhjzCX

2. August 3, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 3. See

https://ibb.co/qMDPKGd

3. August 5, 2001: The San Juan Star, page 10. See

https://ibb.co/Jmd7Spn

4. September 16, 2003: El Nueva Dia, page 78. See

https://ibb.co/TH0N4Nz Sanjuanli (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sherry Gong's mother. I hope she will become a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only link of hers that I have been get to looks just like local Churnalism and is not enough to pass GNG. Of course, it is accepted by editors here that WP:Prof is failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. Not of welcoming Sherry Gong's mother and hoping she contributes to Wikipedia as I agree with that. But The San Juan Star article does not read like churnalism to me. The story has a human interest angle but it's written by a reporter who used to work for the Associated Press and provides significant coverage of Gong winning a silver medal at the IMO at age 11 when she was on the Puerto Rican team. It adds to the other IMO coverage of Gong. Nnev66 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. San Juan Star article is about Sherry got Silver medal and a Special Award for Original Solution at 2001 Math Olympiads for Central American & Caribbean, not for IMO. There is an article on El Nueva Dia talking about Sherry got Bronze medal on IMO 2003. Sanjuanli (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and comments. I don't know which page you can not see. So I post them from another site. (El Nuevo Dia is considered Puerto Rico's newspaper of record.)

It seems I can not post here--so I post them in the Talk page. Sanjuanli (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gong is the only U.S. woman who won medals in both IMO and IPhO. This achievement qualifies her for a page. Significant improvements have been made on the page. The sections about IMO performance and coaching are rewritten with more details and independent references included. In the career section, Gong's notable contributions to mathematical research are included too. 128.252.229.153 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The research contributions are far too early in the subject's career to meet any of the eight criteria described in WP:NPROF. It's virtually impossible for an assistant professor to meet that standard and so WP:GNG is the only possibility. Qflib (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.252.229.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just add my two cents to this debate. I think Sherry Gong can be truthfully characterized as a rising star who is known for her exceptional contributions to the mathematical community, particularly in inspiring and supporting young women in mathematics. Alongside Melanie Wood and Allison Miller, Sherry is one of the few female students to have represented the USA in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) before 2024. Her accolades include one gold, two silver, and one bronze medal at the IMO, along with a silver medal at the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO). Since then, she has been instrumental in training and mentoring female students for the International Math Olympiads, the European Girls’ Math Olympiad (EGMO) and the China Girls Math Olympiad (CGMO). Her efforts have made a significant impact on the next generation of young women in mathematics. Her success has been covered by prominent media outlets in both the USA and China, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, the Herald (Glasgow), Science, and Sohu.

In short, I think what distinguishes Sherry from other rising stars is that she serves as a role model for American female students pursuing careers in mathematics and science. From this perspective, her impact on the mathematics community is in fact long-lasting. 67.252.7.30 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to support those claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Here are the sources. Some may be duplicating what was already mentioned above. Sherry may not be at the spot light of the coverage, but the importance of her role should be evident.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/education/10math.html (NY Times)

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209 (IMO record)

https://www.aapt.org/olympiad2006/ (IPhO record)

https://www.ams.org/news?news_id=836 (assistant coach)

https://www.egmo.org/people/person110/ (Leader, Deputy Leader)

https://www.myscience.org/news/wire/cmu_hosts_new_math_camp_for_high_school_girls-2022-cmu (math camp coach)

https://www.news-gazette.com/wkio/vipology-single/html_9787332c-8a77-11ec-84d7-235488f5ac90.html?id=114973&category=girl-power (math camp coach)

https://www.g2mathprogram.org/staff (G2 program for female students)

https://math.virginia.edu/2019/09/sherry-gong-lunch/ (AWM meeting) 67.252.7.30 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chat over sandwiches is not a significant event in the life of an academic. Any time a scientist from another school comes to my university to present a colloquium talk for the physics department, we take them to lunch, and we invite students so they can have a casual conversation with the visitor. Talking up the importance of an event like that does Gong no favors. Indeed, it makes it sound like she is being hyped up by a public-relations crew that has no understanding of mathematics.

The G2 website is not an independent source. Anybody can put up a website and say things about themselves. Who, other than the G2 program, has written about the G2 program? Likewise, the "myscience.org" item is just a press release, a type of source that does us basically no good whatsoever, and on top of that, it doesn't even give Gong a single full sentence. The "news-gazette.com" page is even worse: it's a recycled press release, just scraped and churned so they can have some text on their website.

I'm all for showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, as David Eppstein put it above, but all we've got right now is fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we frequently take colloquium speakers to lunch. But it is rare that we invite a speaker for the purpose of meeting with students. This occurs only when the speaker has something exceptional that would benefit the students. Is it not so? 67.252.7.30 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although such things are very nice, they are almost never notable - and I've been invited to speak at universities for the sole purpose of meeting with students myself, and I am not notable. The only thing that would make it notable would be if it was covered by multiple independent, mainstream sources. So if the Boston Herald and the New York Times covered the colloquium event with focused articles on the colloquium then I'd agree that it was significant, but this is not the case. Please see WP:N.

Incidentally, can you please explain what you mean by "we?" Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Qflib (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.252.7.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 128.194.2.54 has made few or no other edits other than to initiate a WP:PROD for Sherry Gong which led to this AfD discussion. The IP address is associated with Texas A&M University where the subject of the article is currently a professor. How much if at all does this matter? Nnev66 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have little enough to do with Texas A&M, and made my own independent assessment of notability before this nomination, which I take responsibility for. The answer to your question is "not at all" -- even if the IP was a banned user, WP:PROXYING would apply. I remain unconvinced that the series of passing mentions and non-independent coverage adds up to a pass of WP:BASIC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving my comment to where you thought it should go as I wasn't sure and for your answer to my question. I would have thought The Harvard Crimson or Mathematical Association of America were independent of the subject but I assume because the subject attended Harvard and received medals in math competitions they are not orthogonal. What about the Mom's scans of articles from Puerto Rican newspapers? It would make sense that there would be more excitement about the subject in Puerto Rico as she was the first from there to win a medal. Unfortunately I couldn't find The San Juan Star article in newspapers.com or Proquest. As I re-read WP:BASIC, it seems to me that the mentions in The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Science (magazine) are more than trivial. It's true there's no in-depth coverage but they are more than trivial in-passing mentions but rather acknowledgments of accomplishment at the International Math Olympiad. Nnev66 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local news coverage celebrating a local person's achievements, however admirable, is not enough for WP:NOTABLE. Also see WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Qflib (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak keep Per meeting criteria #2 of WP:NPROF. CaptainAngus (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF#C2 explicitly excludes student awards, even at the graduate school level. See the specific criteria notes, 2c. The only awards here are at the high school (IMO) and undergraduate (Schafer) levels. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't catch that. I changed my reco to weak keep, under criteria #7 of WP:NPROF, in that her unique achievement of winning both IMO and IPhO. CaptainAngus (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that these gold medals are not "winning", right? There were for instance 58 gold medalists at the 2024 IMO. Also, that is not even close to the purpose of PROF#C7, which is about making research contributions that have a significant impact on society, or being famous as a leading expert on some topic, not about achieving a good score in a high school competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you add the [failed verification] after "tying for seventh place out of 536 participants"

This fact is showed in reference [4]

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209

In year 2007 of the above reference, it shows that her score was 32, rank 7, and relative 98.84%

Could you please add reference [4] at the place? Thank you. Sanjuanli (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting my [failed verification] tag incorrectly, despite the tag having a clearly stated rationale. It was entirely about the fact that, at the time I added the tag, the article claimed that she was one of four female US participants based on a source that listed three female US medalists, also, no, I will not participate in refbombing the article with tiny minutiae based on sources that have no depth of coverage of the subject. That is neither the way to build a Wikipedia article of any quality nor to find notability for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed @David Eppstein's [failed verification] tag when I found a journal article on "The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels" reference which noted only three girls had participated on US teams in IMO (as of 2010) and re-wrote sentences to match sources. I was the one who moved the [failed verification] to the line about tying for seventh place out of 536 participants as this is not mentioned in the reference next to this line. Since reference [4] is already used in the article and it supports rank 7, score 32 I went ahead and added it at the end of the line. Since the source was already used once in the article I figured it was OK to use it again as it wasn't adding to the already long list of references that don't add to notability on their own and make it harder for editors to evaluate the article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page and not on this AfD, right? Qflib (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep - good arguments on both sides. There's a bit of too-soon/one-more-coverage-needed, but there's also more risk to learning and to the encyclopedia if we delete and we have missed a source. The Math DL/Math in the News coverage ended up being the tipping point for me to move from weak delete to weak keep. We have one math organization covering with a full article an award given by a different math organization. This meets my (and I think WP's) definition of a significant prize, and not a run-of-the-mill student award. That plus the notability-from-one-thousand small articles is a keep for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator and David Epstein. jraimbau (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that some alternative to deletion is merited here. Perhaps merge/redirect to International Mathematical Olympiad#History, as the subject's historic performance there is noteworthy for the event. Alternatively, move to draft iff there is reason to believe that further information can be developed supporting article-worthiness. BD2412 T 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect / lightly merge outcome, perhaps to the "Gender gap" section of the International Mathematics Olympiad article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with David Eppstein's comments. She seems to be a very good mathematician, perhaps in the future a wikipage will be more suitable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I have kept coming back to this AfD since it started. For certain she appears to be a rising star, but that is not the same as a NPROF notable academic. I don't see a redirect to International Mathematics Olympiad working as there already are quite a few women there, but I won't oppose that if someone adds content and does it after the delete. While she does have supporting articles about her achievements to date, I don't think they are enough. She is young, I expect her to have done enough in a few years. As always, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, so it has to be deleted for now. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the anticipation of a possible merge/redirect ATD closure, I invite interested editors to add sourced mentions of Sherry Gong to articles such as those mentioned above, so that we have a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the comments above that although she has the potential to be notable in the future she is not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a winner of the Alice T. Schafer Prize for Mathematics, Gong meets Criterion 2 of WP:NPROF. Since she only has to meet one criterion, I think this establishes her notability.DesiMoore (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 2 of NPROF very explicitly excludes student awards. She does not meet this criterion. Please read the guidelines you link to before making comments that make it obvious you have not read them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As David Eppstein just said, she does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Qflib (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect proposal. In response to Sandstein's relisting comment, I suggest adding the following as the 2nd paragraph under the Gender Gap section of the International Mathematical Olympiad article. "In the United States, the first female student to take part was Melanie Wood, who first competed in 1998. She was followed a few years later by Alison Miller and Sherry Gong." Could be sourced to NYTimes [20]. Might be worthwhile being a little more specific with dates on Alison Miller and Sherry Gong, if we could do so sticking to general secondary sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, User:Russ Woodroofe. You can't vote again in the AFD you created. If your opinion has changed, strike the original, or add something at the top instead. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russ didn't "vote" again. He was responding to Sandstein's request for recommendations. And even the keep/delete contributions aren't votes - they are recommendations. Qflib (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Qflib says, I am certainly not trying to !vote again. I have indicated above that I am supportive of alternatives to deletion (which are always to be looked for), and I was fleshing out what these might look like, in response to a direct question. I otherwise stand by my nomination -- we have a very early career assistant professor, with some high school para-WP:YOUNGATH coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NPROF isn't relevant here, there was more than enough suitable references in the article (and look at Proquest!) dated before they became a Prof. Also, why even mention NPROF when the article was created many years before she came a prof? The nomination is a BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 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. Although keep !voters have speculated that secondary sources must exist, they have not made the case showing that they actually do. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used IAbot to fix a broken reference. Probably notable as co-editor of an academic journal, Labour and Industry (1030-1763), although Wikipedia does not have an article on the journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, I thought I’d draw your attention to this article and suggest that an article rescue is as legitimate as creating a new one. Schwede 66 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Schwede66. I'll have a go at sorting out that mess of a publication list for a start. First glance at her uni profile suggests to me that she is notable (full professor is not an easy ask in New Zealand, where named chairs are not the norm), and A ranked in PBRF is a significant achievement and not something I think they'd let her say on her page if it wasn't true. DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrt notability I think she is notable in her field. The Big Issues In Employment is in its second edition, and was made broader in scope for the second edition. That, the chief co-editorship, the ILEA Committee membership and the leadership of a large international research collaboration (not mentioned on the page, I will add) all contribute to notability.
Wrt to improving the page: Noting that I have built her a Scholia to contain all the pubs that I've removed from the page. I've divided what's left into type of publication (as I think that is helpful for readers), and selected the publications that ResearchGate/Scopus/Google suggest are most highly cited. I'm not at all wedded to this selection though if other editors have opinions. DrThneed (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in her field --ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based primarily on secondary sources and there does not appear to be enough secondary coverage for an article. The only secondary source about her is too brief to create a proper article from. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly needs some help by someone who knows more I do, but I think it can be kept for now. Bduke (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly a consensus to Keep but in AFD discussions, we don't need editors stating that the subject is notable. Our opinions do not matter. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability, especially with a BLP. I see this article is referenced and a source review might help with this evaluation process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1 and 2 are her thesis and university profile. Ref 3 is a study she peer reviewed. Ref 4 appeared to be decent secondary coverage, although not enough for an article; however it is a contributor piece by 'Fusework Media' and I am not able to ascertain if this is a reliable source or not, their website is here: [21]. Ref 5 and 6 are employer profiles. Refs 7 and 8 are work she has done, with the news source being a statement from her in relation to her news, nothing here can be used to support a biography. Ref 9 and 10 are again, just studies/journals she has worked on and have no useful information to extract. 11 is just another employer biography. Ref 12 is an autobiography/self-description. Ref 13 is mention of something she is working on but it is just trivial and simply mentions her name as being involved on it and gives us nothing to write about her. Ref 14 is just a name mention that she won an award.

I do not see these sources as being adequate to satisfy the notability requirements. (WP:WHYN) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with Traumnovelle's source review and have not found any better sources out there to meet WP:GNG. No indication of meeting any of WP:NACADEMIC's criteria 1,3,4,6 and 7. 2 requires more notable awards than what she has, 5 requires some special type of professorship, which this person does not seem to have (edited), and 8 requires a more notable journal than what she has. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 09:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She seems to be Notable in her field. There are probably some more references out there. TheSwamphen (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheSwamphen, when you find these references, please bring them to this discussion. It's not enough to say they are out there, sources have to be put in the article or brought here so that they can be evaluated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to h index, I checked her on OpenAlex but that profile also has conflation issues. I've asked them to fix it, and referred them to the Scholia I built for her, and hopefully we might be able to get a more accurate idea of her impact. DrThneed (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as reviewing all of these comments, it's not clear to me whether or not WP:NACADEMIC is met since it sounds like she is a professor (unless I misunderstood DrThneed's comments).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the review done by Traumnovelle, the article still needs better sourcing. I could not find any better sources to improve it, so although the professor seems notable, regrettably I must suggest deletion until these sources are found.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced by the keep !votes. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria 5 and 8. Subject is full professor (i.e the highest academic rank) in New Zealand, a country where named chairs are uncommon. Subject is co-chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal that has been published since 1987. Paora (talk) 09:00, 19 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. asilvering (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Badami (1786)

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

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [22]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [23]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [24] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself. [25] and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian” [26]. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar".

Y. N. Deodhar's book [27] along with these two reliable sources [28] (page no 52-53), [29] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google scholars.

And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author. [30]

Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “Veteran historian”.

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD (WP:AADP).

Even the Uttarakhand Open University here [31] (page no 239) mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian.

Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a famous historian,[32] there is literally a Wikipedia article on him (Govind Sakharam Sardesai) which also calls him a historian. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 10:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate article.

“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks Wikipedia:Notability, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

As per explanation given by @GroovyGrinster the article is notable and sources provided are WP:RS giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath [33] (page no 52-53) and Sardesai Govind Sakaram [34] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks Wikipedia:Notability. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article.

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources [35] (page no- 53-54), [36] (page no- 178-179). This source mentions this conflict as Siege of Badami in the page number 52 [37].

WP:RAJ doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a WP:RS, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.

And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.

“Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai

“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “

“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS”

Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.

“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay”

It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Wikipedia. Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for removal.

Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times), WP:RS still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.

“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable”

well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up

it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as for the final source

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7298/mode/1up

There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of Badami?

it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment by one of our more experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Someguywhosbored. Full of unverifiable and unreliable claims. Mccapra (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per someguywhosbored. No need for a separate article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 18 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!} 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freund Publishing House

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

Article without notoriety or readable encyclopedic context Alon9393 (talk) 05:18, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and nothing in google news. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Missing context. Almost nothing there. gidonb (talk) 23:48, 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 Jean Arthur#Driftwood Cottage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driftwood Cottage

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and insufficient to be presumed notable by WP:NGEO. Suggesting redirect to ~~George W. Reamer#Professional background~~ Jean Arthur#Driftwood Cottage, which has been done twice by two separate editors but being objected by an editor. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Japan, and California. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as notable - I performed a quick search for citations and added a couple books which mention the subject. I may also send an email to the Monterey County Historical Society to see what resources they have should this article be kept (and welcome anyone else doing so). DCsansei (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On an aside, was this listed as "Japan" simply because of the garden or is there a further connection? DCsansei (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei:, by "mention" is it significant coverage? Reference bombing with "mentions" can't compensate for lack of in-depth significant coverage. It's just like if a really large slab of wood is sought after, a whole bunch of wood chips won't substitute it and that's basically what packing together a bunch of sources with a mere mention is attempting to do. I put it in Japan category based on "Architectural style(s) Japanese architecture". Graywalls (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment buildings that would otherwise not be notable often become so because of previous occupants. This of course will immediately trigger the knee-jerk reaction about the essay WP:INHERIT (which has tons of qualifiers and warnings about usage). We have many examples of buildings that became notable because of previous occupants, for example Bron-Yr-Aur, "best known for its association with the English rock band Led Zeppelin". The place and the people who lived there become "associated" ie. the place is famous because of the famous people associated with it. This of course needs to be backed up with sources, which is why INHERIT does not apply, so long as there are sources, there is nothing wrong with a place made famous by famous residents. -- GreenC 14:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~George W. Reamer (the builder/architect who is notable) or alternatively~~ to Jean Arthur#Driftwood Cottage a notable actress who lived in the house for a while and apparently did a lot of entertaining there. I gave the subject of this AfD a lot of thought before coming here to !vote. The house itself is not notable, the sources describe it in relation to the Reamer or Arthur. I'm sure it is or was a very nice house with a beautiful view, there are a lot of nice homes for wealthy Californians in Carmel – this one is not wiki-notable. It's one of scores California "celebrity homes" (WP:MILL). It is not on the NRHP or even the state registry (neither of which would confer an "instant" notability pass anyways). There are a few claims in the article that I have been unable verify in the sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrities need to live somewhere, so you are right there are probably many in CA. More important is if reliable sources talk about it, is how notability is assessed. -- GreenC 04:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this building is deemed not notable enough for its own article, there's actually a section dedicated to it at Jean Arthur#Driftwood Cottage, which might be a suitable merge or redirect target. Left guide (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate target. Not enough coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to explain situation with redirects. Almost all of the content was removed from George W. Reamer and then it was converted to a Redirect so that is not a viable target article. It should appear as a green link.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Bik

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

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
"This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7

"More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [38] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: [39], [40] are some of the better sources. He's mentioned quite a few times in Baptist media in Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more [41]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, that "On the Road Back to Mandalay" source you link is discussed in my nomination; it's a WP:SPS from a close friend of Van Bik and thus neither reliable nor independent. The Theology Today source is a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (This is the only sentence that mentions him: "More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward.") The Wisconsin Baptist source appears to a similarly trivial mention. I still don't think we have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

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

The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:21, 22 August 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 August 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, History, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anne Frank Unbound: Media, Imagination, Memory (Indiana University Press, 2012) has coverage about the film. See also: https://www.statesboroherald.com/life/anne-frank-a-history-for-today/ or https://www.deseret.com/2014/4/7/20538955/explore-the-world-of-anne-frank-no-need-to-go-to-holland/ for example. Can also be redirected to List of films about Anne Frank -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of 3 of the above sources appear sufficiently in-depth to count--the Stateboro Herald being the exception. No objection to an editorial discussion about merging this into List of films about Anne Frank, but I do not believe the sourcing is so bad that a forced merge or redirect from AfD is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank without prejudice, as an improper SPINOFF. While there is no problem with the notability of this film, i.e. the intro is mistaken, the write up is short and entirely missing at the parent level. We need to fix that first before a detailed (!) article will be justified. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 26 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!} 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank would indeed be a good choice here, since the page itself is a little skimpy as to standalone notability. TH1980 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources already in the article, there are reviews in the Library Journal, the School Library Journal, The Video Librarian and the Library Media Connection. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The ProQuest links above are capsule reviews (a single paragraph, at most). So even if we had 100 of them, there would not be enough content to substantiate a standalone article. I.e., it's missing the "significance" part of the general notability guideline. These are periodicals that review materials indiscriminately to advise librarians on what content to acquire. Everything that these capsule reviews say can be summarized within a short blurb in Cultural depictions of Anne Frank. The other news sources above similarly do not describe the topic in depth. czar 01:12, 5 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!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shorter reviews carry more weight if there's a lot of them, and there seems to be a decent amount here. A non-terrible article could be made from this if anyone wished to try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article describes this as a TV film, but it looks like it premiered at a film festival and was (presumably) later screened on TV. Unless there's coverage that explicitly states that this was made for TV and happened to premiere elsewhere first, we should probably treat this under NFILM. Which it looks like everyone is doing, but I wanted to voice that here just in case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was produced by a TV station, so that's where the TV aspect comes in. I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it does look like the film is routinely included in various exhibits on Anne Frank and the Holocaust. A copy is also held in the collections of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anne Frank House has info about it and various ways to watch it on their website, so I'd assume it's also archived there as well. This would point towards it being notable, but there's also not a lot of info so a list page could be good as well. The main thing that makes it stand out is that when it released, it had the only footage that had been shot of Anne. I've cleaned the article up so it looks a bit better and less like a stub. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you making an argument to "Keep"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty firmly in the middle with this one. I suppose if pressed I'd argue for a weak keep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, sorry to press you but in close calls, it helps to know where, after their analysis, editors land. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's understandable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ReaderofthePack Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cultural depictions of Anne Frank per WP:SIZERULE. There might be some potential for a longer article here, but as of right now there are basically no reliable sources about this film online, other than the fact it exists, and frankly it seems unlikely more will surface as this film is over 20 years old and was not exactly a major production. The article would just be a permanent stub if it was kept, so I believe a merge is the right thing for it. It can always be remade as its own article if more ever does come about. Archimedes157 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the article has been expanded and improved I would like to say my opinion has changed to Keep. Props to ReaderofthePack, good work. Archimedes157 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's more of a Start Class article now it's been expanded. It already has reliable sources references such as Deseret News and the reviews. May well pass WP:NFILM for being archived in a national museum, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while its not much more than a stub article, it does appear to meet notability from reliable sources. And while notability is not technically inherited, the fact that the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and Anne Frank House should factor in to some degree. I would be okay with a merge as proposed above as well. TiggerJay (talk) 06:47, 18 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. Neither keep nor delete arguments are particularly strong, nor is there a clear balance of opinions in either direction. Malinaccier (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Referendum

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

Not fit for a separate article from the topic Simon Ekpa. The sources are to a large extent media-repetitions of what he says on social media, in WP-terms way to much WP:ABOUTSELF, and what he says has been turned into WP-voice. Ekpa himself is notable, this project of his is not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, Nigeria, and Finland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the statement The sources are to a large extent media-repetitions of what he says on social media, in WP-terms way to much WP:ABOUTSELF to be maybe unintentionally wrong. I just assessed most of these sources and did not spot any that I can categorise under WP:ABOUTSELF. I reassessment or overall source analysis might be appropriate if the nominator can. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces Thanks for commenting. Take these sources from the article as example.[42][43][44] Much is repetition of What Ekpa says and announces (and they generally make that clear). This is, in my understanding, ABOUTSELF even if repeated by others. That is pretty much all that is known on this whatever. This [45] may very well be a WP:RS, and it clearly states "Ekpa says X and Y." For some reason "Ekpa says 30 million voted" from that source becomes "30 million voted" in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I put it this way: Ekpa is a fine source that he said 30 million voted (If it should be mentioned on WP somewhere may fall under WP:NPOV). He is not a fine source that 30 million voted, etc. For that, he is "questionable/unduly self-serving" even when the media who repeats it is not SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

The article is an "event" and not an "individual". It only happens that the organizational structure that most updates are coming from Ekpa as the leader of the organization and such, he is the center of reportage. I don't see like WP:ABOUTSELF on the refs. The article not only covers the self-referendum but the billed declaration in Finland from 28 November to 3 December 2024 and it's a long term article to be further stretched and diversified as the Nigerian government made comment and Ekpa invited them to convention where the self-referendum will be conclusive. Interesting days ahead, so therefore I strongly vote keep. The article tends to track the event. References:1., 2., 3. Wår (talk) 18:01, 29 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!} 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment

Keep rather than to be merged to Simon Ekpa or deleted. The Nigerian government has already reacted making the article divergent.

This and that are also independent sources that most content of the article is built. The referendum event is still ongoing event and Inconclusive till December 2024 per sources. So IMO, it's better not to be deleted and then we create another article on this in the next three months. This article is intended to keep record of the event and not on individual Simon Ekpa. Wår (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Wår (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@War Term, please, change this to a comment. You are only meant to !vote once. Best, Reading Beans 15:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject is very well known in Nigeria. I won’t come here and pretend it’s not a notable subject. It’s so well discussed and has been at the front burners consistently. It’s well covered in the media in Nigeria. 102.164.36.86 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nomination. The "referendum" isn't notable in itself, simply a part of Ekpa's attempts to gain legitimacy and riddled with obvious inaccuracies (nonsensical turnout numbers, questionable methodology/administration, etc.). The aforementioned WP:ABOUTSELF case is also compelling. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Watercheetah99

For the only fact that "Nigerian government" is interested on the ongoing referendum as reported by ORB and of the response to declaration outcome of the referendum in December 2024 makes the article WP:Notable.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång have removed all the turnout numbers from the Lead and Infobox. That alone settles the more reason they nominated the article for deletion. Hello GGS, you may wish to comment on withdrawing or not withdrawing the Afd since you have removed all the Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF from the Lead and Infobox of the article.

Cheers Wår (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the usual closing. Things may have moved around a bit, but the ABOUTSELF issue remains. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of my concerns is that the ORB article does not actually outline the Nigerian government's response specifically to the referendum, it refers to wider anti-separatism statements. Regardless, the case showing how most reporting on the referendum is just repeating Ekpa. Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Watercheetah99

Did you read the ORB report till the end? But nevertheless, you can't ignore the second ref of Leadership (newspaper) given in that reply. That was the Nigerian government's formal response. When the Nigerian government is interested, it's highly notable! No longer Ekpa's thing again. Wår (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the ORB article says "the Nigerian national government has not commented on the Biafran self-referendum" and then linked in something that was not a formal response to the referendum by the Nigerian government — the source used shows a single member of the House of Representatives making a statement on the One-China Policy without any reference to the referendum or even Biafra. The Leadership article above also does not mention a referendum. Regardless, acknowledgment doesn't change that this is Ekpa's creation without reasonable evidence for any claims and the article doesn't reflect that or confer notability. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Keep~~. This subject is very well known in Nigeria. I won’t come here and pretend it’s not a notable subject. It’s so well discussed and has been at the front burners co 102.164.36.86 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Keep and wait — This is a notable ongoing event in Nigeria. There is still more to be vital information to be unraveled as the referendum progresses. Asides that, I think the nominator’s suggestion of merging this article with Simon Ekpa should not be applicable in this case. Mevoelo (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mevoelo, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Best, Reading Beans 05:03, 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 no consensus‎. I'm taking the initiative to close this as No consensus as the nominator is blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Akbar

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M. M. Akbar

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

The person is not notable. The reference provided are only of some news, that too 'times of india' mentioning he is involved in a criminal case. His name itself came into the news just because he is accused involved in some criminal illegal activities. clearly fails natability. Also the references are arabnews and http://www.muhammmadnabi.info which is self published Aparamoorthy (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Aparamoorthy (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aparamoorthy (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references, no structure, no good writing. Quick deletion should have been requested. Alon9393 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The editor who submitted this discussion was banned in the sockpuppet case. Spworld2(talk 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC
Keep: WP:GNG , (WP:SIGCOV) pass, there are reliable sources available Spworld2 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 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 redirect‎ to City Morgue. This is the consensus your local weirdo moderator seems based on policy and sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SosMula

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

Rapper appears to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, as there seem to be no other sources besides self-published ones. GTrang (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything in life has a peer reviewed scientific paper written for it buddy. This is a semi-underground rapper we're talking about here, of course he's not going to have every little thing about his life published on relevant blogs & fact-checked and scrutinized by publications as time goes on. You trying to delete his entire page and his life's work and identity rather than letting the public read about him & create their own conclusions - despite the sources being from himself or from a select few relevant publications, does more damage to the concept of free, unadulterated access to information and is tantamount to censorship, in my opinion.

There is NO NEED to delete this page, but as usual, this site is controlled by power-wielding and weirdo moderators who love deleting and reverting people's hard work, so I'm not holding out on you doing the right thing and leaving this page up. Do as you wish but just remember, in the grand scheme of things, you, me, SosMula and everything else will destruct and wipe away when the heat death eventually occurs so don't overthink & do the most on this encyclopedia site on a Friday night. ✌️ 2001:56A:F471:5500:E54C:3998:1B29:16E3 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Brazil, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City Morgue where there is already plenty of info about how semi-underground he is. He does not get his own article simply because his City Morgue partner has one. SosMula's solo work and personal life have not qualified for an encyclopedic article due to a lack of reliable music media notice, and his article is dependent on social media posts and self-hyping sites. Note that I did not resort to insulting anyone with a different opinion on the matter, as that is a really ineffective technique for winning a debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My vote above generated a multi-paragraph tirade from the anonymous user above ("...16E3"), full of personal insults toward me and anyone else who doesn't think SosMula is god's gift to music. The rant was deleted by a different editor for violating policy. The anonymous user's comments should be disregarded unless that person chooses to take a little time to learn about how Wikipedia really works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to City Morgue, as there currently appears to be very little coverage of this musician not in relation to that group. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:12, 19 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!} 04:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Ottawa Students' Union elections

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. The candidates are not even notable for their own article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Education, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NLIST. Nobody outside the university (and no doubt a sizable portion of the student body) would care in the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student unions are not a level of political office that would satisfy WP:NPOL, so there's no important public service to be served in retaining student union election results for posterity the way we would for a provincial or federal election. No comparable article exists that I'm aware of for any other university student union either, and it's rather interesting that this only lists results for 2024 and a couple of 2023 byelections (but not the main results for 2023), even though the organization has existed in its current form since 2019 and its problem-plagued predecessor had existed since 1969 — but if there were any value in this at all, it would have to go all the way back to 1969, and the fact that it can't, because the university's own student media (a directly affiliated primary source that wouldn't constitute support for notability in this context) is the only possible source for any information, is precisely why this isn't of general public interest. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. University students' union elections are almost certainly not going to pass the general notability guidelines and the elected representatives certainly wouldn't pass WP:NPOL solely based on these elections. Ajf773 (talk) 04:03, 18 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 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Anderson (politician)

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

Political candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Otherwise, there is no evidence of the subject meeting WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ per nomination, doesn't yet meet WP:NPOL until he's won an election. An online search for reliable sources returned routine candidate coverage and interviews with Anderson, and interviews are primary sources. His previous work in the White House was as a lawyer for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and I couldn't find any SIGCOV of him in that role. The closest I came was these two articles in the Washington Post [46], [47], both of which are about the election rather than about Anderson. The sentence in WP:NPOL that declares presumed notability for "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" doesn't seem to apply here, so I don't see that as pulling him over the line for WP:NPOL, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to redirect per User:Bkissin below. Wikishovel (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paging JTtheOG, who put a PD on this page BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 7. Unelected candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. If he wins in November, we can recreate the article. Bkissin (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would just be repeating what has already been said. Someone was getting ahead of themselves by creating a page for Anderson before the election. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 03:07, 20 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 03:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Palve

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

Biography of a doctor makes no claim of notability sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Highest claim is that he ran a 350-bed hospital. Associate professor, no notable academic achievements, a handful of low citation count articles, nothing to satisfy WP:NPROF.

I have done WP:BEFORE searches and have found no significant independent coverage although his name does get a lot of search hits, too many to read all of them. I'd reconsider my nomination if someone turns up some significant coverage (but see next paragraph).

This article was tagged for WP:BIO then WP:PROD but editor @user:Monophile removed the PROD tag and re-added the BIO template after adding links that simply mention or quote the article subject, plus self-penned or promotional articles like this, none of which are significant coverage. If new sources can't bring it up to BIO, it should be deleted. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. Mostly sources with passing mention and entries and some are primary workplace sources and promotional WP:NEWSORGINDIA and does not show any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as doctor, practitioner, gynecologist and Professor. RangersRus (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources mentioned for notability, so i'm also keeping The Indian Express 2 The Times of India Hindustan Times It has been written about him in big Indian newspaper, since 2020, he is working as a superintendent in the Cama Hospital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monophile (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Monophile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Today @Monophile the article creator has twice added information to the article without providing a reliable source. Just 24 hours ago they removed an unsourced awards section stating that no notable sources had been found. Today's edits first reinstated the awards section, then just one supposed award, twice been supported by cites that do not mention any award.
The three citations added today just quote Dr. Palve in the context of reporting on the hospital. That's neither significant coverage nor evidence of his notability. Even if the hospital was notable he wouldn't inherit that.
While I am somewhat sympathetic to Monophile's patent desire to see this article kept, WP:HEY requires actually moving the article towards notability. In my opinion, these are low quality cites and dubious claims and shouldn't move the needle at all. Oblivy (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy I have no interest in keeping this article or not but my aim is to bring out the truth, Maybe I was wrong there once I removed the info and re-added it but you removed it again And here was a lot for me to understand, thank you for that. Yes, I must say that as doctor-related information that I have searched about him. This made me think we might have something to look at in the coverage of why this page should be on Wikipedia, some issues in the page have to be corrected and thanks again for letting me know all this.Monophile (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG I don't believe the nominator checked all some other languages significant coverage, I find it difficult to assess the reliability of Indian sources. I saw, notability satisfy WP:BIO. WP:NPROF appear to be fulfilling No valid nomination rationale is provided. Isha Sattar (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC) — Isha Sattar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I see absolutely no sign of the kind of academic impact we are looking for with NPROF. That leaves GNG: sources in article are either passing mentions, or in junky publications. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. H-index is in low single digits, and nothing else to indicate passing WP:ACADEMIC. No pass of WP:GNG either, as the references cited are either brief mentions or promotional sites or non independent sources. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 19 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 this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy (band)

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

Non-notable music group. Fails WP:BAND. Cabrils (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see two album reviews from Pitchfork, two from Paste, one from Stereogum, one from PopMatters, and that's just what's already linked in the article. The group seems like it easily clears WP:BAND. hinnk (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBAND#1 from the contents of the article alone. Geschichte (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I wonder if the nominator simply looked at the article's lack of detail, which currently makes the band look less notable than it is. The band is featured/reviewed in the indie rock press regularly, and the sources already cited can be used for historical info to expand the article beyond its current stub state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they're notable; article just needs some work Rainsage (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In full agreement with Geschichte. GanzKnusper (talk) 17:15, 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 Speedy delete as WP:G5‎. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuria Technical School and College

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed, no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school. Xegma(talk) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, nothing comes up in Google searches that would warrant a standalone article. Procyon117 (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is created by a banned sock of Mashrafiantu (globally locked). Mehedi Abedin 09:46, 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!} 03:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Be Steadfast Operations Room

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

Non-notable minor political faction. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Politics, Islam, Middle East, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per this comment from the author. It was mistakenly posted to article space when it was meant for draft space. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Whpq. The article's creator has made it clear that this was intended for draft space. Sal2100 (talk) 17:22, 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!} 03:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janith Kashan

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

Non-notable Sri Lankan businessman. Promotional. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. LinkedIn is not an acceptable source. Dan arndt (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:37, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freeland Wood

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

Does not PASS WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources listed are all from a local paper while the other is election results. After an internet search there does not appear to be anymore significant coverage to make him notable. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Police, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 13:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and county-level positions do not pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:31, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death Threat (hip hop group)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. Badbluebus (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Arts, and Philippines. Badbluebus (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added several sources to the article. I think that they're notable as one of the pioneers of gangsta rap in the Philippines and are also notable as they gave Gloc-9, one of the most influential rappers in the country, his start in the hip hop community. They could use stronger sources, but for now these should be enough to keep it. (P.S. I do not listen to gangsta rap) D-Flo27 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The new sources added state that Death Threat was the first (or one of the first) prominent gangsta rap group in the Philippines and that they do have some historical significance for their hip-hop scene, so it passes WP:BAND-7. Badbluebus (talk) 17:12, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Lange

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

Only source is a self-published website anyone can edit. It's certainly possible that this could be a notable topic, although I was unable to locate entries in standard music reference works that cover people like this such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians or Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Both foreign language wiki articles are built off of the same source. A reasonable WP:ATD could be redirecting this to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I found mentions of him in some books:

Bach's Famous Choir, The Saint Thomas School in Leipzig, 1212-1804, devotes about a paragraph to Lange on page 22, where it's mentioned that he composed St Mark Passion which was performed into the 17th century

The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the End of the 16th Century, gives another paragraph to the subject on page 276 Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the second source is only available in snippet view, so it is hard to judge the depth of coverage. The first source largely covers his contributions as Thomaskantor which could easily be used to expand that article. I'm still not convinced a separate article is needed on this person. It's borderline.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a screenshot from that second book. More digging found a german language source from 1920 published by the University of Illinois; Geschichte der deutschen Musik von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des Dreissigjährigen Krieges which on page 411 discusses Lange. Monatschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst mentions him on page 184 as well.

Meister der Renaissancemusik an der Viadrina, Quellenbeiträge zur Geisteskultur des Nordosten Deutschlands vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege seems to have some info on Lange (p 78) prior to being Thomaskantor, but is just a snippet. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment same source [48] as used in my discussion for the Otto AfD (right above this one)... I'm more clear about Otto's deletion discussion than this one, I'm not sure if this person is notable or not. Otto has a lack of sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 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 redirect‎ to Network Crack Program Hacker Group#Wicked Rose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Rose

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

All information is contained and better summarized at NCPH Group. Tule-hog (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NCPH Group. Brandon (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Network Crack Program Hacker Group#Wicked Rose (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
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) 05:44, 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn, found second source. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Open Heart (book)

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

No reviews except the single one I added to the page and one from a fringe integrated medicine publication which doesn't count. Redirect to 14th Dalai Lama#Publications? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 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 keep‎. Looks like a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesedi FM

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

Article about radio station with much unsourced content and lack of independant sources or significant coverage. On inspection one of the three sources appears to fail verification as well. It might be possible that the article could be merged into South African Broadcasting Corporation if, as is claimed in the lead, the station is a subsidiary of that organization, but I cannot find confirmation of this fact. Lenny Marks (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Africa. Lenny Marks (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NRADIO. National radio station with wide listenership. Coverage in WP:RS indicates notability in terms of WP:GNG. [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]

[58][59] (one of the largest radio listener bases in South Africa) etc etc. I got tired of finding sources (I’m on mobile) but there is a large amount of coverage Park3r (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , I'm glad it was relisted. This article is notable because it's of a radio station that belongs to the SABC.Bobbyshabangu _talk 02:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with SABC --Loewstisch (talk) 09:50, 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 Speedy keep‎. Withdrawn, sources presented (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Atlas of the World

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

I am unable to find any sources that discuss this in depth. The book is an English translation of the 1962 edition of the Cappelens historiske atlas, which I couldn't find any sources for either but I don't know where to look for obscure sources in Norwegian; if that's notable we could make it a page on that. This looks like about a paragraph, could be more, but the preview cuts off and it's all I could find. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know where to look for obscure sources in Norwegian, and was able to find the following:

Ten reviews in newspapers or periodicals on the 1962 edition

Two reviews in newspapers or periodicals on the 1983 edition

Therefore I am leaning keep, though none of these sources mention a subsequent English edition. Geschichte (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte Could you add some of these sources to the article? They don't have to have links or content just maybe put them in further reading so we know they exist and we don't end up here again in a year. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but as I said, none of the articles mention Historical Atlas of the World, the English edition. I guess a source that the two are connected would be needed as well. Geschichte (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte The book says that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all the sources are about the original edition, should the article be posted under that name and the English-language edition be treated as a subsection? Or does the English one have a sort of priority? I have no strong feelings either way. Geschichte (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte Not particularly sure, but the Norwegian edition is very clearly the primary topic since the English one has 0 independent sources so I would treat that as a subtopic of the Norwegian edition and the name be changed to the Norwegian one.

In any case, you have fixed the notability issues, so I will withdraw. Thank you very much! PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure comment: It was a good catch by you, with its notability looking highly questionable. I didn't expect an atlas to be reviewed in media outlets either, as that's something I've never seen before. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 19 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. given the newly found sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedpost (book)

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

One solid review already linked in the page, nothing else to fulfill NBOOK. Redirect to Shobhaa De? This on Google Books says something about it but I can't figure out if it's useful since the preview cuts off. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shobha De: Per nomination, this does not meet WP:NBOOK all by itself. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article written as an essay, test mode or a kind of draft that is not ready to be published should be moved to the testing area or it could be deleted and written again. I don't know much about books but I do know about the minimal relevance that is needs to exist here on Wikipedia. --Alon9393 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can anyone manage to look at what the Google Books link is for? It looks like sigcov but I really can't tell. :/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shobha De: I haven't been able to find sources through Google Scholar, Newspaper Archive, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, or Booklist. I found a brief mention on Proquest (Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English) but no SIGCOV. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Banker, Ashok (1999). "Penguin Books India: Speedpost". Indian Review of Books. p. 28. Retrieved 2024-09-18 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "... Then again, never before has there been anyone quite like Shobha Dé. The letters themselves are readable, as Dé's writing always is. There's even a lot of good advice here. And some genuine insights and observations into Dé's extremely balanced and sensible approach to parenting. No argument with that at all. But the good sense is constantly overshadowed by one inescapable fact: Speedpost and its accompanying hype does more to introduce use to Dé's six children than anything else. To launch them, so to speak. To present these six specimens of perfect parenting with a flourish. This, rather than the good advice, is what you're left with at the end of this book, if you can call it a book. In previous ages, an aristocratic parent would organize a sumptuous 'coming-out' party for her scion when she came of age. A debutante ball. In an age where the media itself is one big high society party, Speedpost provides the ultimate debutante ball for Dé's six children. In doing so, she publicly exposes even that most private of human areas: a parent and child's intimate relationship. That itself damages Dé's claim to good parenting irreparably."
2. Bose, Brinda (2000-01-03). "Book review: Shobha De's 'Speedpost'". India Today. Archived from the original on 2024-09-18. Retrieved 2024-09-18.
  The review notes: "The most important fact about these letters authored by De is that they were never sent - by speedpost, e-mail or snail mail - to any of her children at any time of their lives. They were created as part of an innovative new project launched at the beginning of 1999 by a best-selling fiction-writer, as a millennium gift for her six children (and herself and her publisher, inconsequentially. ... The book is a feel-good autobiographical tale with a structural innovation - but it comes in a spontaneous-and-personal disguise, and the fakeness of the enterprise leaps from between the lines. ... But De is climbing the bestseller charts."
3. Patidar, Renu (2013). Shobha De's Contribution to Post-colonial Indian English Fiction (PhD thesis). Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya. pp. 193–195. ProQuest 2314278468.
  The PhD thesis notes: "Speedpost. This is one of De's best books and she has dedicated it purely to her children. The letters are about living, loving, caring, and coping with this world. She touches almost each and every emotion of the human mind and slowly but carefully prepares the children to face the world. She tells her children to think rationally and be witty to act. Her tone is soft, persuasive and lovable. Her intentions are worried and positive as a mother of young growing children. Each letter is written separately to a different child covering topics like—family values and tradition, and other dilemmas of parents. She knows growing up kids have their own anxieties and problems and parent's harsh and cruel behavior is only in their intention for the child's good. She is not hesitant to discuss sensitive topics with her children as she understands the need of the time and wants them to know what they should but correctly and through someone experienced and guiding."
  The PhD thesis notes: "It is one of her bestselling books. It is close to anyone's heart who reads it. This is a firm slap on the face of contemporary critics who tell that her work is erotic, cheap and outright thrash. Here in this book one doesn't find the three or four letter word, literary none. She knows what else sells in this world except eroticism and she bags that in her book. Themes which can be categorized as love, emotions, family and above all mother. She mentions in the initial page 'God must be a mother'."
  The PhD thesis spends a few additional paragraphs discussing the book.
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Muteba, Bertha (2007). Curry, Jennifer; Ramm, David; Rich, Mari; Rolls, Albert (eds.). World Authors, 2000–2005. New York: H. W. Wilson Company. p. 152. ISBN 978-0-8242-1077-9. Retrieved 2024-09-18 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Dé next published Speedpost: Letters to My Children about Living, Loving, Caring and Coping with the World (1999), which touched on family values and adolescent anxieties, written in the form of a series of letters to her six children. "The letters were a literary device to raise certain issues. It was my way of marking [the new millennium]. And my kids loved it too," she told Subha J. Rao for the national Indian newspaper the Hindu (February 10, 2003). The book has found a large audience and has been translated into Hindi (the official language of India) and Marathi (spoken mainly in the Indian state of Maharashtra and in the central part of the country), with upcoming versions in Malayalam (spoken by about 35 million people, mainly in southwest India) and Gujarati (the official language of the Indian state of Gujarat on the country's west coast, spoken by about 40 million people)."
  2. Krishnan, Mini (2005). "Letters (India)". In Benson, Eugene; Conolly, L.W. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English (2 ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415-278850. ProQuest 2137908344.
    The book notes: "Shobha Dé, the pulp fiction writer, has used the epistolary form in her non-fiction book, Speedpost: Letters to My Children about Living, Loving, Caring and Coping with the World (1999)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Speedpost to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Thank you! This is enough for me to change my vote to keep. Also, how did you manage to look at the google books preview? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs). Thank you for revising your position! Here are some Google Books searches I did:

Speedpost Shobhadid
"special human bond there is . In this book , best"
"and child in the twenty - first century : family values and tradition"
"growing pains and adolescent anxieties about love , sex and friendship"

Each Google Books search revealed more of the book's text in the search results. I used the quote at the end of each search to do my next search. This allowed me to combine all the quotes together in Banker 1999. If you want the text before a quote, you can use the asterisk character at the beginning of the search:

"*special human bond there is . In this book , best"

In Google Books, this returns:

"... most special human bond there is . In this book , best - selling author Shobha De writes a series of letters to her six children on the key concerns of every mother and child in the twenty - first century : family values and tradition"

This approach works in many cases but doesn't always work. If the page has a header or footer that's repeated on every page, that could be included in the result and make it impossible to get the text. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources from Cunard are sufficient for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:20, 19 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.