Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 13	September 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Johnel

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

This article needs to be assessed properly per the discussion also going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Theme. First of all, it is shocking as seeing who accepted the article is now a block user of a sock. While going further on the article talk page I see that who created the article already admitted that he or she was paid and it’s also a sock to who accepted the article. That means they all planned to promote the artist here on Wikipedia with some sort of promotional news on blogs about the artist and his music. Also be aware that this article has never been nominated for AFD. It was the draft that was nominated which was supposed to be a keep. Gabriel (……?) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: As per nom. In addition, majority of the references do not meet the requirements for reliability. I can only spot a few reliable sources. Mevoelo (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and Salt. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut for background. Blatant advert pushed by sock farm. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that this article was previously the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Johnel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator and the issues discovered by the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Theme. The article is clearly a promotional attempt that uses other promotions as support. The whole operation is enthusiastic but unreliable, and the singer does not meet WP's notability requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - won a made up in one day award for up and coming but essentially non-notable music guy. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Issues surrounding the fact that this artist under a sock farm and UPE is definitely involved. Fails NMUSICIAN and GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, sockpuppets involved in article creations are automatic red flags. Sir MemeGod  13:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No reason has been presented for deletion. Star Mississippi 17:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crooks & Nannies

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

The article by the Indie band Crooks & Nannies is only responsible for talking about 3 albums, this is too poor to deserve an encyclopedic article could be WP:PROMO & WP:BAND.Alon9393 (talk) 23:05, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid nomination rationale is provided. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 The article mentions 3 albums, and that's it, there is no clear context where you want to get there, it could be pormotional WP:PROMO that is not valid on Wikipedia. --Alon9393 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393`You have not followed the advice you have received from many other editors. Please slow down or stop participating in and creating AfD discussions until you better understand the policies and guidelines. You have not listed a valid nomination rationale under which the article may be deleted. "Only three albums, this is too poor" is not a reason to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 Self promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or about projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, it must be remembered that the rules of encyclopedic articles apply to this type of page as to any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or close projects. I suggest you read it WP:PROMO. --Alon9393 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393 Believe me, I know what PROMO is. This article is not in any way "promotional." It is a good example of WP:NPOV. The subject may not be notable, I have no idea, but you've advanced no case either way here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 Ok, then I'm going to create a musical band and I'll retrofit the main entrance and add only 3 albums. Would you be in favor of that initiative? --Alon9393 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an artist with no albums could be notable in theory. Sources seem pretty reliable even if the article is short, it's in no way promotional. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:52, 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!} 05:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Latif Fathy

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Syria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - received several made up in one day awards from a notorious dictator. Otherwise no evidence of a notable acting career. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bae Youn-kyu

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing on non notable films doesn't show notability because it can't draw WP:SIGCOV from sources.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and South Korea. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to draft... Aidillia (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Aidillia to draftify rather than delete. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 16:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I so much sense resubmitting after another. But if there is a bit notability, like appearing on non-notable films, and likely may later be notable in the future, I will support userfying. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anikka Albrite

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Not opposed to a redirect to the AVM performer of the year but otherwise there is not enough independent reliably sourced information to build a proper article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Tiny amount of coverage [1], basically an interview and [2]. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year#2010s (seems indeed totally warranted): ATD suggested by the nominator (AVN, not AVM, btw). Absolutely opposed to deletion of this BLP. (I would also support a Keep) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Changing to Keep in light of the mainstream sources presented.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: consistently featured in the list of the top female stars of the industry, as reported by mainstream media outlets in the following years: 2013[3], 2014[4], 2015[5], 2016[6]. Also part of the first married couple to win AVN male and female performers of the year award simultaneously in 2015 [7]. Rim sim (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is a policy basis for the article. Can you link to actual sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links updated Rim sim (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject is the mainstay of an article[8] on the full-fledged animated Virtual reality scannings, a still nascent tech that can be used to make human avatars and keep them immortal in the virtual world. Rim sim (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New York Post is a tabloid and not a reliable source. So this is irrelevant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSPSS, NYP is reliable source for entertainment related news. Rim sim (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The fact she has won a lot of notable awards and reliable source to that shows notability.--Gabriel (……?) 18:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (England, Wales and Scotland)

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

Article subject demonstrates extremely limited levels of notability in terms of coverage actually about the group in question. Search online doesn't reveal any extensive coverage to justify a distinct article for it. Suggest therefore this article be redirected to International Socialist Alternative. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, previous state of article prior to recent edits was sourced with 19 references comprising:

- 11 via self-published blogs or websites of which 8 were the website of Socialist Alternative and other ISA sections and the remaining three self-published pieces by other communist groups. This is a fundamental breach of

WP:SELFPUB and more importantly WP:ABOUTSELF on the grounds that an article must not be primarily based on self-published information.

- 8 independent sources where the majority of them were dead links or didn't actually make any mention of Socialist Alternative yet were being used as inline citations to imply they were (such as this one about COP26 protests[9]).

As a result of this the article, when reduced to the only sources that could be judged suitable for inclusion (and even one of those is questionable) there is extremely limited demonstration of meeting notability requirements for a standalone article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'D and at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)) which would have been helpful to have mentioned in the deletion nomination so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Films

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

There are seemingly notable productions associated with them, but I couldn't find sources to evidence it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, did you try searching anything in the Japanese language? I don't know the company but despite the poor sourcing, it appears to be notable if the article is correct Andre🚐 20:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, more opinions needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And improve with existing sources, most of them in Jp, some on the corresponding JaWP article. Has a search in Jp been performed? If so, what is the issue? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements. It should also be noted that, due to the time period in which the company operated, and due to the lack of contemporary (to that time) Japanese magazines, newspapers, and other possible references being available online, it is likely there are many references that are not accessible to anyone outside of Japan, and those references would even be difficult to find within Japan outside of some specialized libraries or buried in a used book store. Given the high profile of many of their works (especially the three Takahashi series), it's extremely likely those sources exist despite our being unable to access them from 10,000 miles away. I'm still looking for more, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with JP sources. Andre🚐 21:32, 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.

Volume 5: Anatomic

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

After checking google I am unable to find proper citations, other than album and CD listing sites, so in my opinion this one does not meet the notability guidelines. Drushrush (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Drushrush (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afro Celt Sound System. This band has a long history and some other albums that achieved notability, but this one seems to have been ignored by the music media when released. The AllMusic review already cited is a reliable source and helps a bit, but doesn't often much fodder for analysis. Today the album is only visible in typical retail and streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Carlos

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

Similar case to Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares, which was deleted here. Having caps is no longer a 'free pass' and Salvador Carlos needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC to be kept. The best that I can find is ASEAN Football, which mentions him once in a squad list, and Timor News Network, a Blogspot entry that mentions him twice in different squad lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the analysis by Spiderone. The fact a person at one point in time, in a galaxy far, far away, played soccer well does not automatically qualify them as notable. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:56, 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.

Naila Al Moosawi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability. فيصل (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found these sources [10][11][12][13], perhaps there are more sources out there. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ednabrenze, and? All but one of these so-called 'sources' you just listed are essentially puffery outlets. The Gulf News mention is probably the only one that stands out, but even then its mention of Naila is brief and hardly notable. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:02, 15 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!} 22:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, hardly any coverage in reliable sources or in regional news. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO, for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwan Attoof

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

Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR, as there were few or no sources showing notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Entertainment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwan is well known film actor/director in Kurdistan/Iraq, the article could be stay. I added serval new references. Kushared (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess new additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzhugh Lee (disambiguation)

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

WP:TWODABS applies. The only legit entries are the general and the vice admiral. Middle names, Fitz Lee (Medal of Honor) and Lee Fitzhugh don't count. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (just) There are a lot of partial matches, and the see also section may be WP:USEFUL to readers, as well as the 3 entries that are fully valid as this appears to be a dab for Fitzes and Fitzhughes. Not the most important page, but potentially helpful to readers, and nothing to be gained by deletion. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly add the anthroponymy project to the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 14 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!} 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only two entries here (there's no evidence Fitz Lee (Medal of Honor) was "Fitzhugh"), so WP:TWODABS applies and this page could and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Online panel

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

Declined PROD. This article had no sources for the last seventeen years, but when declining the PROD, the declining user jammed three refs onto the first sentence of the article that do all mention online panels. One appears to be a research paper, which is fine for verification but does not establish notability. The others appear to be brief mentions of online panels in books about market research. I don't believe notability was clearly established by WP:REFBOMBING in this fashion, so here we are. It has not been proven that there is in depth coverage in reliable sources, I don't think we generally consider the <whatever> For Dummies series of books to really be something we should be basing encyclopedia content on, but that's ok because none of the content is actually based on it, it was just tacked on as a ref because a Google search showed that Online Surveys For Dummies contains the words "online panel" a few times. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first source is not a "research paper" it is an edited volume on the concept of "online panels" AKA a 500+ page book that is literally just about the article topic. The third source is not "brief" it has multiple pages discussing the pros and cons and methods of this kind of research. This appears to be a significant concept in marketing research, see here, here , here, here, dozens upon dozens more, etc. The prod said it had been unsourced for 17 years and therefore was clearly non notable which is nonsense. Also, in what world is refbombing adding three sources? My rationale for citing the less academic source is it provided a better explanation as to what the topic was and I didn't want to go jumping through hoops to find that in the edited volume to cite the first sentence. Probably not the best source but not unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on a merge, in any case that seems like one of many possible targets and a fairly arbitrary one - it doesn’t seem any closer linked to the focus group concept than many of the other marketing concepts discussed with it. There is a 500 page book about this and many many many articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book’s definition set out in its introduction is: “an online panel is a “form of access panel, defined in the international standard, ISO 20252 "Market, opinion and social research - Vocabulary and Service Requirements," as "a sample database of potential respondents who declare that they will cooperate for future data collection if selected" (International Organization for Standardization, 2012, p. 1). These panels sometimes include a very large number of people (often one million or more) who are sampled on numerous occasions and asked to complete a questionnaire for a myriad of generally unrelated studies. Originally, these panels were called discontinuous access panels […] Panel members can be re-sampled (and routinely are) to take part in another study with varying levels of frequency.” Not really a focus group since it involves many many more people while a focus group is small. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i’ll try to expand it to start class tomorrow so the article actually makes clear what this is (and also because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is after writing so many words) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are now words PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is pretty well known concept in the field of research. Taking a quick look at the google scholar results, besides the sources identified by PARAKANYAA, this research paper discussing online panels in marketing research, this research paper that talks about how online panels might have specific biases and this research paper talks about alternative ways to setup online panels to provide better quality data. I also don't understand the rationale of the nom, not having sources for a long period of time has nothing to do with the topics current notability and the refbombing allegations also appear to be exaggerated, all three of the references added are relevant and show that the topic has been written about in depth. Sohom (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Focus group. Searching on scholar shows that "Online panel" and "Focus group" are closely linked concepts [14]. It makes sense to cover them in the same article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 31 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!} 22:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more before potentially closing as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Focus group - per Hemiauchenia. These are a thing, but they are not really an independent thing. Focus group is where readers will find the related informatio that supplies the context for the online panel. This should be treated there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The problem with that is that this isn't a focus group. It is a form of access panel, according to all of the sources that talk about it. If we're going to merge it anywhere it should be there but that article is worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Focus group is the correct target. I think access panel should also be merged or redirected there. Neither makes much sense as a subject divorced from the parent subject of a focus group. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It being merged would just make the page worse. It is not the parent subject, they're related subjects but it is not the "parent". It makes more sense for it to be deleted than merged there, as it has no clear space in that article. There is a several hundred page book and several journal articles delineating the specifics of this concept. I think that is enough to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought it was clear that a page that already has a heading "Types" and a heading "Online focus groups" clearly has a place for this. As for space, that page has about 3,000 words of prose - half of the lowest threshold for WP:SIZERULE. So there is no problem with space. The reader is better served by having this aspect of focus group engineering treated in situ, rather than hived off to a page where there is little notable to say. Detailed methodology is not encyclopaedic information per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not online focus groups, though. We have an article on online focus groups already - which is what that section is on. I meant it doesn't have the space as in contextually, without it being made more confusing. There's plenty of notable encyclopedic stuff to say regarding its prevalence, usage, history, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not online focus groups. Yes. Thus merge and not redirect. All other comments pertain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Access panel is a Redirect (it should appear as a green link) so it isn't a suitable target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think these topics are closely related enough to warrant merging. Almost all sources discuss them independently - while there are many hits for them together that's because they're two very widely used polling methods so they show up in a lot of academic studies, obviously. These are not the same thing, their only commonality is being "people you ask the opinion of" which is like, a poll. Focus group is usually a handful of people this is usually tens or hundreds of thousands. They are also established individual things (like, the individual panels) in a way that has no analogy in focus groups. By your logic, we should upmerge all of them including focus group to opinion poll. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian engineering colleges before Independence

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

This list has a finite boundary, which is a good thing, but I cannot see that this is a notable intersection. From that perspective I feel it fails WP:NLIST. At the very least it deserves the community's scrutiny. I feel the History section is valid. this, if the outcome is to delete I feel this shoudl be migrated, probably précised, in to a new article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Schools, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are Poor, unreliable, bare url links and page not found links. Page has no indepth coverage on the list of Engineering colleges and fails general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging the History section elsewhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe merge the history section into History_of_education_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#Engineering? There's not much detail there at the moment. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:45, 7 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!} 22:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not agree with Merging anything from History because the large portion of it is unsourced and the few that are sourced (4 sources), 1 is a bare url link, 2 is a primary website of the college itself and not secondary independent source. 3 is also primary and just a notification signed by the Registrar and does not cover the larger paragraph on the wiki page. Source is about the name change of institution and that is it. Source 4 has no such backing on page that "In 1947 when India became independent, there were 36 institutions for first-degree engineering education, with an annual intake of about 2500 students." Page 199 to 201 of the source from 1962, there is just a table of some engineering and technology institutes teaching various subjects and very likely the wikieditor probably just counted the table to 36 and wrongly called it total number of engineering colleges in and the source says that from these colleges maybe 2500 students took engineering subjects. Source and the comment on the page do not match. RangersRus (talk) 12:27, 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.

Semantic discord

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

Hi, I'm proposing the article Semantic discord for deletion. The existing have serious problems and I have not been able to find significant sources that are specifically about "semantic discord" (or "semantic dispute"). The article is very old (2004) and have not had many serious expansions since. Various examples have been added and later removed because they were unfortunate examples. In 2021, it was merged with Semantic dispute (which has the same issues).

Comments on the current sources:

The article in "The Horizon" may have it as its specific topic but I cannot access it (but it seems to be a student publication, which is maybe not ideal as the only serious source).
The Devitt article is about methods in (philosophical?) semantics and covers something relevant about the topic. He uses the term "semantic" disputes a few times, but sometimes it seems to be more in the sense of 'dispute within the field of semantics'. (I have not read it in its entirety, but the word 'discord' does not occur there).
The source "Encyclopedia of GIS" is about naming conventions of geographic data (about 'semantic uncertainty', with a section of two paragraphs called "Discord"), which is not really the topic of the article.
The fourth source may be spam, but used to link to some course notes that are about the term 'semantically loaded' (related, but something different).

The term "semantic discord" can be easily be found in use through searching (when searching, I spent extra time looking at Google Scholar), but it does not seem to be something specific that is studied or described in detail in an encyclopedic (or encyclopedically useful) way. It seems to be used to refer to any kind of discord (in the normal sense of the word, i.e. disagreement or tension) that may be connected to "semantics" in a very broad sense. Sometimes it's the lack of linguistic agreement, sometimes it's differing meaning in different languges, sometimes it's differences in the interpretation of law, sometimes it's differing in the core of various ism's, and some people seem to introduce it as a term for their statistical solution to some problem. But I got the feeling that the term is very often a loaded term itself, often used to describe some arguing as a rooted in questions of definition (especially the case with 'semantic dispute'). Over the history of this article and "semantic dispute", various examples have been added and removed as not being good or being opinionated.

I have difficulty seeing how it would be possible to write about it without some variety of original research (or synthesis) or without controversial examples/POV problems.

Potentially, something about the term could in principle fit into a broad-concept article on "Discord", which it seems difficult to disentangle from (but note that an earlier article on "Disagrement" was deleted), but it could be a redirect target nonetheless. Or it could redirect to Semantic argument, which seems related, or one of the things under "see also" (e.g. to loaded language).

There are no links from article namespace except the disambiguation page Discord (disambiguation) (I removed an irrelevant link from Ladda Land recently), but there are links from various discussions. Note that Semantic dispute and Semantically loaded redirects to it. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is not in good shape, and it isn't clear if there are editors interested in the topic, but there are many scholarly articles that use the term. Without doing deep research (i.e. no, I'm not going to read 10-20 articles on G-Scholar), I am going to assume that the use of the term in those sources is significant. Lamona (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have the impression there was any significant coverage of the term? I went through several pages on Google Scholar and everything looked like passing mention (or just regular use) of the two words. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 10:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What they show is that "semantic discord" is a "thing" - it is a known concept that is used frequently to describe something. Most of them don't define it, which tells me that they expect readers to already understand the concept. That tells me is that it is a common concept in some disciplines. I did find one article discussing it as a concept rather than using it to describe social actions - here. A search in Google Books brings up a number of books in the area of linguistics. I don't know if this is just some post-modern gobbly-gook or if it is a serious area of study - I have yet to find the origin of the term, which presumably would define it. But there is a lot of evidence of its use. Lamona (talk) 17:14, 13 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!} 22:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of what to do here. There’re some possibilities of expansion and examples, such as the use of “rigor” in education, but I don’t see any secondary sources. Is this too soon? Bearian (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swaroop Puranik

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Awarded or recognised by the governor doesn't highly show any impact tones career and fails WP:ANYBIO. While we expect to see notable films he directed, there appears bit promotional and likely COI creation.

Citing unreliable sources (WP:REFBOMB for a non notable film, Journey of a Queen, shows no WP:SIGCOV for his major work, hence doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the promotional content from this article now its clear Dgtrox (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be resume and WP:PROMO based page. Fails notability. The entrepreneur and his achievements are not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Martin (humorist)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The article is unreferenced, and all I can find is a number of his own essays (e.g. this New York Times satirical piece from 2000, this Chicago Tribune piece from 1993, and one Huffington Post article in 2015) and some promotional pages covering his more recent gigs and appearances. His IMDb page shows no significant roles or performances, so WP:ENTERTAINER isn't met either. No real coverage of any of his published books. GhostOfNoMeme 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMeme 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced WP:BLP, which normally would rate a speedy deletion. The problem with what I see online is they are tangential to him (a couple of political new stories where he’s mentioned briefly), books and essays by him - but not about him, and unreliable sources. That results in a situation where there is not significant coverage of him. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Giri

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems WP:TOOSOON. Or Redirect to List of Nepalese actors. nirmal (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Won't the inclusion in the list be challenged if he has no page himself? If the inclusion seems OK, I could support that outcome too, given the so-so coverage he received in Nepalese and the sourced list of films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meet WP:NACTOR according to the given refrences ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. for more info

Judith Iwu

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Acting non notable films isn't part of the guideline and statements of words including interviews, aren't part of WP:SIGCOV, hence my retainable for deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : All I just see here are interviews mhen.--Gabriel (……?) 19:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources present does not meet the general notability criteria. The sources are laughable to say the least. Best, Reading of Beans 08:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 procedurally. One of a series of problematic noms. Any established editor is welcome to bring this to AfD if they believe there is merit. Star Mississippi 23:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic convolution

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

Article without reliable sources or references since its creation, plus the template was installed 14 years ago without having any improvements. his notoriety is doubtful WP:N.Alon9393 (talk) 22:09, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was fully sourced, being an import form a suitably licensed work. It's not a template. Appears to meet WP:GNG. What WP:BEFORE was done? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I think that PlanetMath would fall under user-generated content and so would not be sufficient by itself. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 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.

Plymouth-Canton Marching Band

AfDs for this article:

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

Like pretty much every student organization or team, this WP:ROTM high school band is not notable and should not have a standalone article: fails WP:CLUB and WP:NMUSIC. Sources are non-independent, very brief mentions, or routine local news similar (WP:AUD) to that my own high school's band received. Most content is fluff about personnel and awards received by countless competitive youth groups (11th place finalist, regional champion, etc). There are a lot of student contests and appearances out there like these every year, and even winning multiple times is not basis for an article. May be redirected to Plymouth-Canton Educational Park#Marching band.

I don't believe there are any other individual high school band articles, and similar AFDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pequannock Township Marching Band (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnstable High School Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reeths-Puffer Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Run Marching Wildcat Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stafford High School Tribe of Pride Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redlands Terrier Marching Band Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Michigan. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I see this source, I am convinced that this band is notable. The edit history of the article in question is also interesting. The Banner talk 00:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A four-sentence blurb in the local paper? That's not substantive and is precisely what WP:AUD is for. Newspapers regularly cover local schools' football, basketball, band, academic, and other accomplishments, but we should not have separate articles for every one of those student organizations because they've won something. This should be summarized in the main article, not a separate respository for cruft like the staff (WP:RFCSCHOOLADMIN) and events attended. Reywas92^Talk 01:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBAND#9. They won a prestigious band competition in 1990, 1991, and 1999.
Re: regional media, major media treatment in:

Indy Star [15]
Detroit Free Press [16]

On another (admittedly slightly WP:ILIKEIT) note, this little school has had an amazing run of success with its marching band. I think we would barely bat an eye at keeping an article about a football team with three national championships. Its article has survived two previous AfD's. What's the sudden urgency to call this article "cruft" and remove it? Oblivy (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd and utterly overly broad to claim NBAND with that. Dozens of schools have won and placed in this competition and dozens more have won other band competitions. This should be recognized in the school's article, not as a standalone article for the student group.

The Indy Star did not actually cover this: as you can see with "Observer life" in the top left, it was covered by a reporter of the local Michigan site Observer (hosted by Hometown Life), and it was not actually published in the Star but https://www.hometownlife.com/story/life/community/observer/2015/07/23/go-blue-cep-band-kellogg-park-plymouth/30579317/ there]. The second link is also the local Canton Observer, not the larger but also local Detroit Free Press, and in the "Local news" page, where they also cover the high school drag race team, an automotive detailing company, and high school football, volleyball, and soccer teams.

I think we would barely bat an eye at keeping an article about a football team with three national championships. This is not true, we do not keep articles about high school football teams, because every school has a team, many have won championships, and student teams and groups should be covered in the school's article. Yet Baltimore City College football, which dates to the 1800s and has notable alumni, appears to be the only one.

Indeed, articles written by a member of the student group, with lists of "legendary" and "preeminent" staff and flowery language, are crufty and should be avoided. Reywas92^Talk 20:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Free Press article I was referring to is this [17]. There's a 2007 article which is a broken link. Sorry about that.

Regarding the IndyStar article are we really at the point of picking nits over where it was "actually" published? The point is that they get a variety of press coverage, and most of it reflects their multiple national wins (which kind of blunts your point about other bands winning the competition).

If you're not happy about the language used, then the article should be improved per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD. Oblivy (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability isn't temporary. They've won multiple national championships. Those championships haven't disappeared since the last AfD in 2017. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't notable in the first place. Many schools have won multiple championships for this particular event as well as others (USBands, Western Band Association, Tournament of Bands). Countless more championships for other student activities. That doesn't mean they should have articles. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, WP:BAND (#9). Yes, it does. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam VanHo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The majority of references are either non-independent, court documents, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS predominantly in local news. No substantive change from the previous 2009 AfD ending in deletion. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage to establish notability. GhostOfNoMan 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GhostOfNoMan 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD notes the author as Adamvanhoforjudge (obvious COI). This time, it's Akronbrownsfan – the very same user who created the now-deleted Midwest Law Blog article, a blog that was run by Adam VanHo (as you can see via this Wayback archive which after a few seconds redirects to http://www.vanholaw.com/blog.aspx), and with zero other contributions. Some other obvious COI edits in the article's history, too (such as 330akron, Ohiodad, Akron44308 – accounts that pop up to edit his article once and disappear). GhostOfNoMan 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ohio and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked for sources for this individual but can only find mentions in passing which confirm the basic facts of his legal career and him being an unsuccessful election candidate, so nothing notable enough for a standalone article. Valenciano (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam VanHo is a noted attorney with a long and distinguished career. Adam's extensive legal work and history of quality legal representation is testified to by his numerous appearances in a variety of media outlets. His legal cases have been written about in the New York Times. There is no basis for deleting this article. It has existed since 2010. This attempt to have it removed is an absurdity -- and so is peppering the request with references to arbitrary Wikipedia policies instead of explaining in simple terms why the article is not fit for Wikipedia. Plainly obscurantist behavior. Adam VanHo has thousands of Google hits -- you are invited to peruse his many positive reviews and testimonials from clients. This is not some backwater Saul Goodman! To end, I would also describe your cynical attempt to single out the names of article contributors as downright offensive. It would seem to me that you are implying these accounts are suspect because their names are related to Ohio, the state in which Adam VanHo practises. You would not, I suspect, give a hoot if they were named YankeesFan or DallasCowboys99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeOmen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet GhostOfNoMan 01:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly encourage you to read WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. I am not engaging in "obscurantism" by referencing basic policies. Notability is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you want the article to remain, you need to be making some attempt to demonstrate its notability.

Adam VanHo has thousands of Google hits – irrelevant, see WP:GOOGLEHITS.

It has existed since 2010. – irrelevant, see WP:LONGTIME.

As for This is not some backwater Saul Goodman! I never made any such aspersion. VanHo may well be a successful and accomplished lawyer, but that doesn't mean he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'm not attacking his character by saying he doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC.

And as for labelling my cynical attempt to single out the names of article contributors as downright offensive. ... I'm not trying to offend anybody, I'm highlighting the fact that this article has a suspicious pattern of editing that suggests conflicts of interest. At least three accounts clearly local to Ohio just happen to pop up over the years and make single edits only to this one article. It's not an argument for deletion per se, it's simply an eyebrow-raising observation worth noting.

You are invited to peruse his many positive reviews and testimonials from clients. – I shan't be doing that, thanks. GhostOfNoMan 00:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable lawyer as far as I can tell Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was ready to defend the attorney, but other than one case that made The New York Times in 2022, and he has been doing a good job, but really hasn’t done anything for the bar or civics that would allow him to pass my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this article should probably be WP:SALTed to prevent recreation given that this article was already recreated after an AfD by an SPA once before. The SPA also has already taken up a new (since-blocked) sock over the course of this discussion, so it's very possible that another attempt will happen in the future. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks like there's a very strong likelihood it'll be recreated soon after. Two blocked socks have already joined this AfD (one struck, one removed by an admin) which gives me the impression that this won't be the end of it... GhostOfNoMan 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Sir MemeGod  13:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Hsiung

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT. No appearance in multiple reliable sources. Aside from h above, there are many unsourced, promotional contents. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Entertainment, and China. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single interview in Vogue and citations to three blogs doesn’t make significant coverage. If you find something more useful, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here is the only good source I found:
1. Mankani, Sneha (2020-08-18). "6 dancers on how their craft empowers them to find strength during crisis". Vogue. Archived from the original on 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "The first routine Elina Hsiung choreographed was at age nine, to the chart-topping Backstreet Boys song ‘Larger Than Life’. ... Hsiung teaches at a dance studio in Manhattan whenever she’s not working on workshops and collaborations in Mumbai. Trained in ballet, contemporary, jazz, hip-hop and modern, her style is versatile and natural. Her recently launched e-book In My Shoes is almost an instructional manual on how to make it as a dancer in New York. Hsiung attributes her toughness to dance. It gives her the fortitude to train for 10 or more hours a day (she tops this up with cardio and body conditioning at the gym) and the mental capacity to learn routines and adapt techniques in minutes, as well as tackle auditions and rejections. [quote]"
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elina Hsiung to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Sitara

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

Unreleased Indian film. Nothing notable about the production, so it does not meet WP:NFF. I couldn't any sources that give WP:SIGCOV so WP:GNG is also not met. The only sources I could find only give routine coverage based on plot summaries, press releases, quotes from people involved in the film and social media posts. John B123 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. John B123 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: announced release in 12 days, and probably coverage coming with it. So this is either too early (cannot judge yet) or too late (too close to release's date). There is no need to delete or draftify for such a short period of time (which, by the time this discussion is over will be either reduced to 5 days or less than zero, if it is Relisted). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film is as yet unreleased. Therefore a black-and-white case of not satisfying WP:NFF: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Film has not yet been released, the production itself is not notable. QED. Article could have remained in draft space... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except, given existing coverage about production (cast (including notable actors, as I am sure you know), plot, filming, location, production history etc), it is far from proved that production istelf was not notable, very far.... so basically, no, nothing is demonstrated at all. And this is thus far from being a ”b/w” case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has received significant coverage, that would satisfy the notability guidelines, though? It's all just entirely routine press releases - film announced, these people have been cast, production has begun... Anyway, time for others to have their say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of deleting this article, extend this discussion till the 27th and if reviews show up, then keep it. DareshMohan (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete !voters should consider changing their !votes to draftify. I don't think deletion is the correct decision for a film that is about to be released and will likely be notable after its release. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's very clearly not the best course of action to delete the article, so I hope the closer does not do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae and Hey man im josh: Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case the creator is convinced that the article, as is, easily meets WP:NFF and WP:GNG, will not discuss notability with other editors and has already reverted a draftification. I can see the article being moved back to mainspace without any significant changes almost immediately if draftify is the outcome. --John B123 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are insufficient keep !votes, perhaps the closer can close this as "The result was draftify, and the article is not to be moved back to mainspace until the movie is released in theatres." –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: A movie being released doesn't make it notable. It still needs to meet GNG or the provisions of WP:NFO, the most usual one being The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. I would suggest adding and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics to the end of your proposed closing. --John B123 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: None of that sounds like a good reason to delete the article instead of moving to draft space. WP:DRAFTOBJECT exists and the creator was pushed by myself and another admin to revert a draftification if they truly believed it to be inappropriate. An AfD result changes things, it makes it so that the reasons that the AfD was closed as draftify need to be addressed before moving an article to main space. Let's not try to solve a theoretical future move war by deleting content that could prove useful in the coming months, request page protection or make a report in that case if necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: I agree draftspace is the best place for this article until if/when it meets the notability requirements. Adding move protection to a draftify outcome would go a long way to ensuring it stayed there until moving to mainspace was appropriate. John B123 (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd much rather we wait until such protection is actually necessary. At this point in time, we have no reason believe anyone won't respect the close. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We kinda do, though. Draftifying was the correct course of action, and I would have been happy for it to be worked on there and moved to mainspace, post release, if it satisfied WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV, but instead the draft was moved straight back to mainspace without any improvements. Mushy Yank doesn't accept what WP:NFF says, nor does C1K98V, who below is saying "improvement shall take place in the mainspace." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank doesn't accept what WP:NFF says, nor does C1K98V is both inappropriate and not true. AS I'VE CLEARLY explained, I think it does MEET NFF, and SO DOES C1K98V, that is very very clearly stated in their !vote; so please refrain from making this kind of fallacious comments. You have your opinion, ours differ from yours, obviously. You may be right and us, wrong, but even if that was the case, that does not allow you to resort to personal attacks to make your point. Or just go to ANI and report us. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NFF. The film was announced and filmed during the COVID-19 period. The filming was also delayed/halted due to the pandemic. There is a specific category to list down impacted films. So I'm opposed to deletion, dratify and redirect the article. The changes and improvement shall take place in the mainspace itself. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C1K98V: What makes the film's production notable in your view? Which sources give WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG? --John B123 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hannan (singer)

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be a WP:UPE. I draftified it last week, but the same editor re-created it at Draft:Abdul Hannan (Pakistani singer) which I also draftified and despite my request for them to submit draft for review. New users should ideally follow the WP:AFC procedure if they believe the BLP meets WP:N, but this wasn't done.

The draft has now been reverted to the main namespace. After reviewing this BLP, I don't think it meets the criteria for either WP:NSINGER or GNG. The creator of the BLP is actively participating in AFD discussions, even though they are relatively new to WP which suggests they are WP:BE. And I wouldn't be surprised if some IPs vote to keep this BLP in an effort to influence the outcome.

Additionally, the creator of this BLP brought their own creation to AFD to ensure it was rescued through the AfD process and the BLP remains - a practice commonly used by UPEs and socks. Also, Alon9393 , the creator had previously been warned by Davey2010 not to canvass editors in AFDs, but it appears Alon9393 have no intention of stopping. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added {{undisclosed paid}}, largely to see how Alon9393 reacts to it (do they continue to show signs of being a UPE?)I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I dream of horses, Saqib I declared myself unable to respond to these accusations. I am not a paying user. I voluntarily collaborated here. If you see me editing the article, it is because I want it to maintain the required relevance and notoriety and comply with the standards of musical notability. I have also collaborated on various articles such as Richard Jones (British diplomat), Hannah Bat Shahar, Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations, Juancho De la Espriella, Ercan Aydogmus, Tiger Tyson. All those articles with serious deficiencies and lacks of notable sources. Now the point is about Abdul Hannan's article, I absolutely leave this to the community so as not to misinterpret or, as they say, have influence in this vote, in this debate consensus. Thank you Alon9393 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rolling Stone India is a brief mention and most of Pakistani sources briefly mention him or are tabloid-style stories without any proper byline. WP:SIGCOV requires high quality references with proper bylines. His songs has been included on Spotify charts but they doesn't meet WP:GOODCHARTS criteria. An enforced AFC review is another option as this is likely edited for payment. 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources (non-bylined articles in sources considered dodgy per WP:RSN), and what coverage the subject has had in reliable sources is not WP:SIGCOV. (FWIW, I moved this page back to mainspace per creator request under WP:DRAFTOBJECT and not because I thought it was a notable topic.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this BLP Alon9393 is now blocked and wanted the BLP deleted as well. However, I believe the AFD process should be allowed to run it course. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kottankulangara Festival

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

The article is not large enough to warrant a split. A section on this topic already exists in the main article, and the current size of this article (6,616 bytes including markup) does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:SIZERULE. Additionally, the title is misleading, as the ritual in question is actually called Chamayavilakku, which is just one of several events held during the Kottankulangara Festival. The Doom Patrol (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Hinduism, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kottankulangara Devi Temple. agree with Nominator.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair business practices

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

There is no evidence of a set definition of an "unfair" practice, and this article makes heavy use of WP:SYNTH to combine various definitions from different places. However, unlike "fraud" which has a clear and agreed-upon definition, pretty much anyone can call anything an unfair business practice. I suggest it be deleted due to aforementioned SYNTH, as well as WP:NOTDICTIONARY concerns. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while there might not be a set definition of what unfair business practices are, or rather what these are will vary by country/organizations/schools of thought, the broad concept of unfair business practices clearly is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: without sourcing to prove that it is "clearly" notable, this is just WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a concept that does have a lot of history, and it's not as unbounded as the nomination makes it seem. For example:

EU Directive 93/13/EE, then EC 2017/2394, protect against unfair contract terms, sometimes described as "Unfair Business-to-Consumer Business Practices" [18]. Here's an announcement last week about enforcement, which talks about "unfair commercial practices" a synonym.
UK has had unfair contract terms laws for about 50 years or more. Other commonwealth jurisdictions, same.

However this article sweeps much more broadly, and doesn't just deal with issues of unfair contract terms but extends to a variety of business practices. And it's U.S. based. And it seems to be quite original-researchy. I don't like TNT but that might be the option here. Is there a possible merge/redirect target? Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic has been discussed in depth in multiple reliable sources. For example:

Tamara M Buckwold, Statutory Regulation of Unfair Business Practices in Saskatchewan: Possibilities and Pitfalls, 1999 62-1 Saskatchewan Law Review 45, 1999 CanLIIDocs 624, <https://canlii.ca/t/7n2zt>, [19]
Heitler, George. “Antitrust, Restraint of Trade, and Unfair Business Practices: Impact on Physicians.” The Journal of legal medicine (Chicago. 1979) 3.3 (1982): 443–460.
Jakouloff, Karim. “Social organisations can be guilty of unfair business practices.” Revue de l’Union européenne 580 (2014): 436–440.

Two other examples:

Business Torts Reporter (a newsletter for lawyers) had a recurring column called

“Unfair Business Practices.” For example, Business Torts Reporter 24.6 (2012): 166-

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission incorporated the term into its mission statements in the late 1990s, e.g., Goal 1: Prevent fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace [20].

Buckwold is discussing a term called an "unfair practice" in the statute, defined as:
5. It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in a transaction or proposed transaction involving goods or services, to: (a) do or say anything, or fail to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled; (b) make a false claim; (c) take advantage of a consumer if the person knows or should reasonably be expected to know that the consumer: (i) is not in a position to protect his or her own interests; or (ii) is not reasonably able to understand the nature of the transaction or proposed transaction. That seems like a workable scope.

Buckwold notes that Canadian provinces have laws headed 'Unfair Trade Practices Act" or "Trade Practices Act" or "Business Practices Act". This is a common issue in the project, which can be addressed by putting alternate terms at the top. There's been a shift towards Unfair Commercial Practices in recent years but I think the meaning is the same. Oblivy (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, conditionally. It’s not the most common legal term of art, but based upon what’s been found and noted above, it’s got significant coverage. My opinion that WP: HEY is met, is conditioned on someone adding the sources found to the article and making sense of it. In the alternate, if nobody volunteered to work on it, userfy it to my space. I’m not sure if I can work on this one this week. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and does not violate NOT. A topic should not be deleted merely because its definition is unclear or disputed. If we deleted articles on such grounds we would have to delete our articles on law, justice, crime, marriage and sin to begin with, because there is no worldwide agreement about what they actually consist of. For the avoidance of doubt, an article should not be deleted merely because it needs to be disambiguated or split. James500 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and to @Bearian as well. I'm encouraged by the replies although I find the mention of Justice a bit triggering because it attracts diverse opinions (I'm thinking of a particular divine justice editor...). I'll see if I can make time over the next few days for a first swipe at this and will report back if I do. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially rewritten the article. It's much narrower in scope (maybe too narrow?). It needs a narrative rather than just country-by-country -- I have ideas on what's needed but not enough time to do it, so any helping hand would be great. Oblivy (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CYSNERGY

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

A longstanding WP:SPA article about a company which seems to have operated from 2011 to around 2020. An article in the Spanish Wikipedia was recently deleted ("Entre S/REL y promocional + empresa desaparecida"). There are claims within the article, but mainly supported by links to generic websites, and it seems unlikely that a methodology dating from 2000 can indicate notability for a firm founded in 2011. A brief interview with the company founder can be found (enerTIC, 4 December 2015), but I don't see that or anything else that I can identify as sufficient to demonstrate that this company attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Spain. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - company doesn't seem close to clearing WP:NCORP. Brandon (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruan (footballer, born 1991)

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

The claim to notability, starting 2 matches each in a Brazilian regional tournament and the third tier of Greek football (as well as 8 additional substitutions on), is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, Greece, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Kakimoto

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

The claim to notability, playing 739 minutes in the second Japanese league, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Soo-yeon

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

The claim to notability, playing 15 matches in South Korea 15 years ago, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. And his article in the Korean Wikipedia is a stub with little to no WP:RS. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination and Clara, could not find any significant coverage. Sir MemeGod  13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rootz: The Green City Music Festival

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

I can find no sources to support this event's notability. Possibly merge anything that can be sourced and leave a redirect here to Calliope: Pittsburgh Folk Music Society Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Pennsylvania. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, look at other festivals listed in Category:Folk festivals in the United States. I saw a few there that could be similarly deleted. A lot of what reads like pure ad copy. However, many were well written and sourced.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Bosnia, Grand Princess of Hum

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

An article ostensibly about a princess but in reality entirely about her husband and brother. The dates and places of birth and death are pure poppycock: literally nothing is known about her. No historian ever has put together two sentences about her. WP:GNG failed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but on grounds different from the nominated ones. Before the 18th Century, rarely was a woman ever named in sources without naming her male relatives. There’s only one source, and that is tantamount to original research, which is my biggest problem. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that her male relatives should not be mentioned. It is that the article should not be entirely about them. There is nothing to say about her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Bosnia, Baness of Slavonia

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

A non-notable individual: the topic does not even approach WP:GNG. Not every spawn of a medieval ruler's loins is encyclopedically notable. The only thing said in RS about this woman is that she existed. To my knowledge, no historian has ever put together two sentences about her. The references cited do not mention her. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina ~~and Yugoslavia~~. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing insufficient. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed WP:SIGCOV - one source, a family tree, is in passing and the other is unreadable. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acral arteriolar ectasia

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

This page is based on one case report and then a textbook that talks briefly about that one case report. Based on my search this page does not meet GNG. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails significant coverage. Generally we need more than two sources about a topic. This is dangerously close to original research. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stippled nails

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

Only one source and I could only find one other source talking about the subject. Both sources do not go into much detail. Based on my search this does not meet GNG. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage; having a single source is equivalent to original research. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Pierce (CEO)

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and there is pretty much nothing more to add about the person. The person and the reference in this article is already mentioned in the history section of Atari SA and that's all we need. Sceeegt (talk) 16:35, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Video games, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gąsawa massacre

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

The article only describes the motives for the massacre and nothing more, the course of the crime is also lacking, in addition, most things (sources) in the article have a trivial mention of the subject in one sentence, which is incompatible with WP:SIGCOV Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I could not find here this footnote Labuda, Gerard (1995). The death of Leszek the White (1227). Historical Annals. 61: 7-33. Gerard Labuda describing the views of Józef Uminski. If somewhere you Marek still has about this study then it's cool, but if not, well, we have problems. I hope that we will be able to keep the article after all. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:41, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Leszek the White There do not seem to be adequate sources for an article. It's already covered in Leszek the White#Assassination. Maybe only one or two sources refer to it as a massacre, since massacres usually result in more than one death. TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are adequate sources - six of them with one or two specifically dedicated to this event. Whether or not it should be under “massacre” or something else is a naming question, not a reason for deletion. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also probably a good idea to read the talk page first before !voting [21] or the relevant DYK discussion. Naming issue was discussed. More than one person was killed though most sources focus on the most important one - the Duke. Volunteer Marek 17:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One would think that the assassination/murder of the ruler of Poland would be notable. YMMV I guess. There’s six reliable source in the article with one or two of them specifically dedicated to this event. This is also a very well known event in Polish historiography. The text in Leszek the White article is different (and frankly with worse sourcing). This article was featured at DYK and no one had a problem with either notability or any other issues then. Now it’s getting nominated for deletion by some brand new account with just a few edits who for some unknown reason calls me out by name. Yup. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kean (musician)

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

WP:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon --- FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nicholls

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

WP:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon ---FMSky (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bring Me the Horizon, and possibly add protection to prevent that redirect from being reverted, as has happened several times already. The edit comments seen on the History page show that some editors insist that he has achievements outside of the band, but that is false. The current article is dependent on trivia about his gear and non-notable personal matters, and the fact that he made the top ten in a magazine's list of best drummers can be mentioned at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The user who's previously deleted the article (without going through this process) cited WP:BANDMEMBER, which says: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."

Individual notability through WP:MUSICBIO states that musicians are notable if: · Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The content of Nicholls' article directed about him specifically are sourced to Music Radar, Drum!, Alternative Press, Noisecreep, NME and the BBC.

· Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Through the band he is apart of contributes to, they have had multiple number-one albums in their home country, as well as eight different UK Top 40 Hits.

· Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Through his band that he contributes to, has multiple platinum-selling singles and albums in their home country alone, as well as Gold records in the United States as certified by the RIAA.

· Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

Alternative Press and Noisecreep reported about his broken hand that he sustained while touring.

· Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)

Four of the albums he has worked on with his band have been on major labels such as RCA and Sony Music.

· Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Nicholls is in a band with Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia who are all prominent musicians who display their independent notability, through other collaborations, producing other works and music scoring for films.

· Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Nicholls is a prominent drummer in his genre who is well-known and has been featured on MusicRadar's list of as one of the best drummers in rock music, making him a good representation as a drummer in rock music.

· Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.

He has been nominated for several Grammy's and BRIT awards, winning a BRIT award with his band for best alternative act this year.

· Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition.

Nicholls has never been in a music competition, rendering this one of the only guidelines for independent notability he won't meet.

· Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album.

He has performed on Channel 4's (UK Broadcasting Network) Sunday Brunch, a television show, with his band.[22]

· Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

His music has been persistently played on BBC Radio One and Kerrang! Radio for well over a decade now.

· Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Nicholls appeared on BBC Breakfast in October 2021, a segment he was apart of in the studio collaborating with the BBC for Children in Need.

Out of all of the independent notability guidelines, there is only ONE he fails to comply to. At the top of the section, it's said that: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. He follows not only one, but ELEVEN of the twelve listed criteria, so therefore the article should be kept. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a few specific articles in drumming-oriented publications, but almost every accomplishment listed above was by the band, not him (or any of the other members, for that matter). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has achieved a lot with his band. However, let's not pretend that he isn't apart of the band. His achievements lie with the band, and the guidelines apply for not only an ensemble, but musicians in general too. That individual member still shares the same accomplishments as the band. Again, to highlight the first line of the guidelines at the top of the section: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Again, on an individual level, Matt Nicholls applies to ELEVEN out of the TWELVE applicable guidelines, not just one of them, regardless on whether they are with his band or not. This is like arguing that if Lars Ulrich isn't a notable drummer because all of his accomplishments are through Metallica and not his own, he just shares his achievements with other members. To add to this, Nicholls also qualifies for the composer's list as he contributes to songwriting: WP:COMPOSER "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." He is credited as a songwriter to two of Bring Me The Horizon's biggest hits such as "Throne" and "Drown". Ulrich has also co-written some of Metallica's biggest hits. Do you see what I'm getting at? This article is a must KEEP. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shows individual notability per above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moza Sultan Al Kaabi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, as almost all sources only mention her death in a car accident. And the page was created three days after her death. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack significant coverages about her works and yes maximum sources are about her death. Xegma(talk) 17:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is notable per WP:ONEEVENT - the first Emarati woman to become an orthopedic surgeon.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actil railway station

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

Despite the name, this wasn't an actual public train station. From the article: "Due to the line being for industrial purposes, it never really carried actual passenger train services apart from some trains that were scheduled for the workers" although this isn't cited to anything. The existing sources are useless; one is a single word mention that doesn't even support the content it is cited to, and the other is a YouTube video. A basic BEFORE search did not turn up anything promising. At best, this could be redirected to Finsbury railway line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wilson (businessman)

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

Non-notable political candidate and businessman. This page was previously created and deleted under a different name. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @Bearian: and @SportingFlyer:, who voted in the last deletion discussion for Keith Wilson. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Head of a non-notable business, with only coverage related to his election candidacy [23], would not pass NPOL and doesn't seem to meet other notabilty. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Thanks for the ping. There are zero independent sources about this CEO and alleged philanthropist. There is a single source about his role, on his own company’s website. There are no citations at all for his philanthropy. The few sources that refer tangentially to him as a business owner are really about how he ran unsuccessfully for mayor, which according to precedent we already decided rates at best a redirect. The re-creation of this article is pretty blatant spam. When a page that was created and dented after an AfD, we must stop its recreation ever again. If we don’t do it, then we need a community wide response about changing the consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Transportation, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Portland, Oregon mayoral election. Per Bearian. If he wins in November, we can reassess. Bkissin (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Clearly fails WP:NPOL and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian, and redirect to the election page. Jamedeus (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rodents in animation

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

A large majority of the list is completely unreferenced, a vast majority of the "notes" are unencyclopedic. May also fail Wikipedia:Listcruft. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Animal. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A redirect back to List of fictional rodents would be fine, per WP:ATD and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional rodents#Animation - The only reason this got so long that a split was necessary to begin with is because no attempt was being made to stick to any kind of criteria to limit it only to notable examples, on either this or the parent list. Remove the copious amounts of non-notable and dubious examples and condense the multiple entries that come from the same topic (i.e., have one entry for groups like The Chipmunks rather than listing them individually as separate entries), and it would fit neatly into the main list without the need for a split. This spinout list is very poorly sourced, so I'm not going to formally advocate for a Merge, but Redirecting will preserve the history here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly fancruft and listcruft. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and fancrufty split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge missing blue-linked entries to List of fictional rodents: I think this split is not necessary, a trimmed version would fit into the parent list size-wise. But whatever happened to WP:Alternative to deletion? List of fictional rodents could also use improvements, but is clearly useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV. And a number of notable entries are present here but not at List of fictional rodents. So simple deletion or redirection would hurt the value of the parent list for navigation and be detrimental to the project, a case of WP:BATHWATER. Daranios (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Informatics Olympiad

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

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have linked Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources in the Turkish article are Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to cite Turkish sources that would be great Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 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!} 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No encyclopedic relevance or sources demonstrating the slightest of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 07:32, 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.

Democratic liberalism

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Democratic liberalism

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

The article, based on only one source, has no reason to exist. The concept of "democratic liberalism" is quite obscure and the infos here, if deemed relevant for the encyclopedia (I have several doubts), could be moved to Liberalism. While it is true that at the beginning liberalism was not necessarily liberal, in the 21st century liberalism, as well as other mainstream ideology, is quintessentially democratic. More generally, there is no need for a distinct article on the supposed subject of "democratic liberalism". At best, "Democratic liberalism" should become a redirect to Liberalism. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for deletion, as per Checco's explanation above.-- Autospark (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is another article based almost exclusively on a single source, which is basically original research. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of federal political scandals in the United States. Valid arguments presented by both sides. But in the end, consensus is that this is a duplication of the proposed target at best, and a POVFORK at worst. No prejudice against a selective merge, if it doesn't violate UNDUE. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents

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

Very sparse article with a strange criteria (why only recent presidents?) and quite frankly, is only substantive for Trump (where it's a list of people who worked under him who now consider him to be incompetent). No substantive content besides the list of scandalous Trump politicians, which are covered elsewhere. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand substantially further back in time, and provide some refined guidelines for what constitutes a "controversy". An "impeachments" section that does not mention the impeachment of Bill Clinton is lacking, to begin with. While there are periods that historians would deem the cutoff for "modern" presidencies, I would think that this would go at least as far back as Nixon, and possibly as far back as Kennedy. BD2412 T 02:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For one definition, see Stephen Hess and James P. Pfiffner, Organizing the Presidency, Third Edition (2020), stating "The modern presidency began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his leadership of the United States through the Great Depression and World War II". BD2412 T 03:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I went ahead and expanded it back to Reagan since that was as far back as the Brookings analysis went on turnover by administration Superb Owl (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I chose 2 presidents from each party for starters to try and keep it balanced. I will not object if other editors want to expand it. Do not see any reason for deletion. Superb Owl (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST. High Crimes and Controversy: Noteworthy Presidential Scandals, Presidential scandals throughout history, Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone; What Was the Biggest Political Scandal in American History? 7 Historians Make Their Picks. Given the scope of this topic, reasonable to apply WP:LISTCRIT to limit to particular era. There are some problems: not convinced that "recent" is useful since it dates immediately, splitting by centuries might be useful; also, the table skates close to WP:OR - what source identifies scandals using that typology? Nevertheless, these are content issues, not notability issues. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine as long as only notable controversies are included. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicated information that is found at List of federal political scandals in the United States. I don't think a redirect would be helpful. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, @Goldsztajn, @Dympies, does the presence of List of federal political scandals in the United States change your analysis? - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the differences between the two. The List of federal political scandals in the United States is difficult to read, includes legislators who are not associated with presidents, and is impossible to compare across presidencies. That article also does not categorize scandals by type and excludes Criticism from former allies, excludes turnover comparison, and excludes family members category. Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest there are no differences - but the way List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents is presented (to me), is very confusing and there is no information about the "controversy" and does not address the very real content concerns raised by BD2412, Goldsztajn, and Dympies. Looking at the list in the article, I do not know what "Major criticism of the President" means - does that mean the individual listed expressed concerns about the president? Also, I should be able to know at a glance why Eric Lander was part of a Biden administration scandal. I was about to say this should be TNT'd, but then I found a much more comprehensive article already written. - Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive in some areas but not in others. There is a real lack of discussion of presidential scandals in Wikipedia. I think given the growing power of the presidency, that we need a more coherent article to summarize the performance of presidents along these lines that is not bogged down with a massive list of congressman and judges and others that are not part of the executive branch Superb Owl (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is a need for an article substantively focused on the performance of presidential administrations in this area (not just general occurrences in other branches coinciding with the timing of a presidential administration), and that what constitutes a "scandal" or "controversy" should be well-defined for inclusion. The latter is something missing from this article, but readily fixable within its scope. BD2412 T 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl - the only consideration is reliable sourcing - our own perceptions of the changing status of the US Presidency can't inform this discussion. @Enos733 - thanks for the ping and drawing my attention to the other article. I'm looking at this purerly from a sourcing (ie notability) perspective. For this list, I find sourcing that satisfies this specific class, but which does not statisfy a general list of federal political scandals. Looking at the federal list, notwithstanding WP:NEXIST, I do not see sourcing present in that article which satisfies that specific class. Given the prominance in the sourcing assocated with Presidents, this list, at least on first glance, has a stronger founding in sourcing and thus a stronger claim for notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost duplicate of List of federal political scandals in the United States. We need only one article on this topic. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. This is a WP:COATRACK and unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging would be unnecessary since the content is a bit of a disaster, but regardless of the condition there's a policy basis for redirection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States, per Dclemens1971. Bothsidesism has destroyed many once reliable sources, and forks about controversies have wrecked parts of Wikipedia. A controversy about email servers versus hundreds of crimes and scandals is what has gotten us into this fine ness. No thank you. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table tries to distinguish between scandals, indictments and felonies, unlike the List of federal political scandals in the United States. I reorganized based on the most serious first and removed Hillary Clinton (which was a borderline case that is not in the List of federal political scandals) Superb Owl (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between editors advocating Keep, Delete and Redirect. No one has mentioned this in the discussion but the article being discussed is very weighted towards the Trump administration and lighter on other administrations, does that impact the outcome participants are seeking?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to something like "Personnel scandals of President Donald Trump." The table can largely remain as a comparision to other recent presidents without worrying as much about where to stop adding the lists and redundancy with the other list of scandals. Trump takes up much of the focus of the article anyway. Superb Owl (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is a clear cut case of WP:COATRACK. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. "Recent U.S. Presidents" is arbitrary and will change, and thus fails WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can live with a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. now divided between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. The primary sticking point between the two camps is whether or not editors believe this article is a duplicate of the target article and a COATRACK and those editors who believe it is a valid standalone list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I remember there was a policy against making articles about "recent" things. Also virtually the entire thing is about Donald Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSpectre (talk • contribs) 08:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid article Is la🏳️‍⚧ 10:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are still divided. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a clear case of WP:COATRACK. Almost all the prose is about Trump, with only the table covering the other presidents. Besides, the List of federal political scandals in the United States exists, so any information about presidents can be added to that article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enos733. The current version is a WP:BLP nightmare, and I don't see much worth merging into List of federal political scandals in the United States. Listing names of people with "Major criticism of the President" is questionable (why would we list the names Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky instead of linking/describing the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal?). "Family members in major roles" never explains what the controversy was. And I don't think listing dozens of living people's names, in an "Ethics / scandals" column without further context, meets the letter or spirit of WP:BLP. From what I can see, anything worth including in List of federal political scandals in the United States is already better presented there. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "Recent" is absurdly vague. Controversies must be attributed in nominal articles (Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, etc..). If there is a new election for Donald Trump, simply separate by the number in the presidential order as disambiguation. Svartner (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bizarre WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK. We have dozens of articles covering "controversies of recent US presidents". No need to make up an arbitrary timeline to cover them together. No opposition to using some of this content in a different current/future article, of course, but you don't need consensus to do that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 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 Methos Chronicles

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Note: there's a story by Don Anderson also titled "The Methos Chronicles", but it seems to be unrelated to this project, besides sharing the same character and name. And then there's also a "Highlander zine, "The Methos Chronicles," brought to you by Carol Ann Liddiard and Sheila Marie Lane", again, seemingly unrelated. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Siddiqui

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a scriptwriter and dramatist, and cannot find coverage to add. I have also looked at a lot of the references in the articles he is linked to, and cannot find him mentioned. I did find a mention of him being arrested in 2018, but this is not appropriate for the article per WP:BLPCRIME. I may be failing to find coverage in Hindi-language sources. No obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Film, Theatre, and India. Tacyarg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Youtube and Imdb aren't RS, I can't find anything about this person. A doctor and a bunch of others come up in my searches, not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, nothing shows up on searching. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. I tried to search but could not find any secondary independent reliable source on the subject. Clearly fails notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaz Hussain Batalve

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

Article is not fit for main article space - too many problems with language, grammar, style, etc., but Draft:Ijaz Hussain Batalve already exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article is good enough and unique...grammar or language may be corrected...Article should be retained. Mottoo99 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the grammar and language first, in the draft article, then move it to mainspace? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bastun, as you said, a draft exist for this, so why not put in a history merger template before an AFD? Even if it goes through not, at least give it a try! Intrisit (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On which version? One contains at least one copyright violation (now removed)? Simpler to just have the draft to work on, then have that go through AFC? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I drafted it because I had concerns that it might not easily meet WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a famous and most respected personality of Asia adding his profile on Wikipedia is very much appropriate and knowledgeful for Wikipedians and otherwise. His contributions deserve to be appreciated by Wikipedia etc. Emmay33 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying there can't be an article. The problem is the language and grammar are currently too poor to publish. The article can be improved in draft space, then get moved to main article space. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - AfD template removed by IP editor 116.71.176.235, restored now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical raw materials

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

This article is in very bad shape. It just lists random raw materials a few countries deem important. I feel like this information is insufficient for a stand-alone article, so should probably be merged or deleted altogether. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did write on the talk page that it needs expansion and I will be doing some of that myself. Nor are the raw materials "random", one of the points of expansion is the how and why the countries make these lista (EU + US is not a "few" and I will be adding the UK, etcetera). Merged with what? The article has just gone up, what's the big hurry to delete it? Wait a while and if it isn't expanded, then nominate it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, with all due apologies, doesn’t seem to have a single focus. Either we need to userfy it, or decide what needs to be cut out in the next week or so. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bit baffled by this comment, what are the multiple foci? From my perspective, the focus is on critical materials as designated by governments around the world and it easily meets GNG for that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am sympathetic to the statement that doing an AfD ~2.5 hours after creation is a bit too rapid. I think the topic is notable, albeit the page needs work. Since the original editor is currently changing it a lot I would be OK with Draftify; I do think delete is too harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Kensy, Baron of Echlin

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

I looked at all 8 accessible sources listed in the references. None of them mention Kensy. I also did a google search for "Baron von Echlin" and could not find any suitable sources. DrKay (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is translated from already existing german page Rainer Kensy von Echlin -- will the German page also be deleted? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources lack sufficient WP:DEPTH to justify an article, if anybody knows German, I suspect their article would probably also warrant a delete. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons: 1) he’s not automatically notable, because since the 17th century, Barons not living in Scotland are not members of Parliament, and 2) there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources: either they are passing mentions or not independent of the subject. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, perhaps the hagiography should be amended to include his conviction to four years of prison for fraud and related crimes[24], as reported in quite a few media reports[25]. Fram (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in Turkish television

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

Searched but I cannot find enough good sources. No Turkish article Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in Turkish television

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

Turkish article also uncited, and tagged as maybe unencyclopedic Chidgk1 (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in Turkish television

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

The Turkish article is also uncited, and it has been tagged as possibly unsuitable for Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey at the 2009 World Games

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

Tagged uncited over a decade ago. Nothing in the article shows it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ousley

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and lacks coverage in independent third-party reliable sources. Ryandnes (talk) 11:02, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Andrew Ousley meets the notability requirements because the sources below show that he has received significant coverage in reliable, independent publications:

The New York Times: "How a Producer of Concerts in Crypts and Catacombs Spends His Sundays"

In this feature article, The New York Times profiles Andrew Ousley and his innovative approach to classical music. The piece provides in-depth coverage of his "Death of Classical" series, highlighting how he brings performances to crypts and catacombs. It discusses his impact on making classical music more accessible and engaging to modern audiences, underscoring his significance in the arts community.

Forbes: "From Crypts To Catacombs: This Entrepreneur Is Giving Classical Music A Radical Makeover"

This Forbes article offers a comprehensive look at Ousley's efforts to revitalize classical music by hosting concerts in unconventional venues. It delves into his entrepreneurial journey, detailing how he founded his company and developed unique concert experiences. The coverage emphasizes his innovative contributions to the music industry and his role in attracting new audiences to classical music.

Billboard: "As Concerts Return, Death of Classical Brings Beethoven to Life In a Cemetery After Dark"

In this piece, Billboard highlights Ousley's "Death of Classical" series and its significance during the return of live music performances. The article discusses a Beethoven concert held in Green-Wood Cemetery, showcasing how Ousley's creative vision provides immersive experiences. It underscores his influence on the live music scene and his adaptability in challenging times.

The New York Times: "Is Opera Dying? No, But This One Is Staged Among the Dead"

This article reports on Ousley's production of Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas" staged in the catacombs of a cemetery. The New York Times provides significant coverage of the event, exploring how the unique setting enhances the opera's themes. The piece highlights Ousley's innovative approach to classical music presentation and his contribution to keeping the art form vibrant.

Associated Press: "Purcell opera performed in cemetery catacombs"

The Associated Press covers the unique performance of "Dido and Aeneas" in cemetery catacombs organized by Ousley. The article details the production's concept and execution, illustrating his role in creating groundbreaking musical events. This coverage by a major news outlet emphasizes his notability and the widespread interest in his work. Sirmallionborntolk (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last 3 barely even mention him. New York Times article is mostly an interview. A few sentences can be added to the Death of Classical page Ryandnes (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage such as Theguardian.com, NY times, Forbes, NY Times, Vulture etc.Mysecretgarden (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Úradník

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

Úradník played a total of 904 minutes in 16 matches to date. All I found were an interview and contract extension; nothing to indicate that he meets WP:GNG. Considering that almost no Slovak clubs are well-known outside their homeland, I don't see this article as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Aeroflot Ilyushin Il-12 crash

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Once suitable sources are found, it can be made a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Soviet aviation task force/Notability.

The Terror Twins

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

It fails notability policy. This article was forked from The Judgement Day, with emphasis on two of its members who have left the stable. However most of the content in this article is present in the parent article, the team is not notable outside of The Judgement Day. WikiLeon (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WikiLeon (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to create a redirect, but IPs just recreate the article over and over. 1, the article is just a copy-paste of Judgment Day. 2, the article didn't include anything about the team of Ripley and Priest, just a summarize of their individual careers and the work as Judgment Day. 3, Untils a fews weeks ago, there was no source using the Terror Twins name (besides one trivial mention, it was not used). 4, no sources highlighing the Terror Twins tag team. So, as I pointed many times, sources just focus around their work as singles wrestler or the bigger stable, not enough coverage to create an article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to The Judgment Day. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 07:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Judgment Day and Protect to prevent IP activity - I am behind the similar IP's to this one that put the redirect back twice supporting HHH. The time for protection should be a minimum of three months. 2001:8003:5130:2601:106C:8D59:789D:EA50 (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass GNG or WP:10YT. So far there's nothing here that couldn't be on their own articles, so perhaps we return to it if anything of consequence happens with them. — Czello ^(music) 07:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and does not need a redirect. It is just similar to those team names in Mixed Match Challenge (typical WWE stuff). --Mann Mann (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harper, Indiana

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

According to Baker, a post office, and probably a rail spot, judging from the maps, but no sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 7 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!} 07:46, 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 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!} 05:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoMowheelz

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

Declined and rejected at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace by creator this clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Transportation, Websites, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 7 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!} 07:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search brings up their website, social media... What's now used for sourcing is primary. I don't see notability for this magazine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 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 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 04:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadreza Mousavi

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 7 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!} 07:44, 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 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!} 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evenk hydroelectric power plant

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

Cited source not found. Project was abandoned many years ago https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10247664/ Seems doubtful it is historically notable but maybe you know better? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, and Russia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 7 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!} 07:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My research seems to confirm Chidgk1's comment above. The project was never built... WP:TOOSOON ^[5] ^[6] Further comments/input welcome. Jtwhetten (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penzhin Tidal Power Plant Project

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

Perhaps this made a little sense many years ago but I cannot see how it is notable. According to https://www.renewable.news/innovation-technology/russia-wants-to-build-the-worlds-most-powerful-tidal-power-plant-in-kamchatka/ it would cost 200 billion dollars, but why would the government spend on this when they need the money for the war and have so much cheap methane? Also why divert scarce labour from the war effort? Also according to the talk page the numbers are wrong. However I don’t know Russian language or history - perhaps it has some historical notability or there are better sources in Russian than the above link which was just translated from (presumably unreliable) “local media”? https://h2ce.ru/en/projects/detail/hydrogen-power-cluster-based-on-penzhinskaya-tidal-power-plant is a company with almost no info about itself. https://dspace.kpfu.ru/xmlui/handle/net/170412 and many other sources are pre-war when the economics and politics were very different. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 7 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!} 07:42, 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 04:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2015 Services Air Airbus A310-300 crash

Articles for deletion/2015 Services Air Airbus A310 crash (2nd nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. Additionally, no lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ~~Weak Keep~~ per the amount of fatalities, GNG errors if fully exposed with evidence will sway my vote into ~~Delete~~, article can be expanded upon still with reliable sources, if not it should be merged into A310 accidents and incidents, entry there needs to be heavily expanded upon. @Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually avoid using the amount of casualties as a way to determine notability since it really isn't one. Someone could presume that an article might be notable with the amount of casualties but all articles should abide by the notability guidelines.

Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Most if not all of the news articles originated in the aftermath of the accident which makes most of them primary because, "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." To expand further, to qualify as a secondary source, the coverage would have to contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. None of what I find qualifies as such. In my opinion, there really isn't significant coverage since coverage never really expands outside of the plane suffering a runway excursion.

For the subject specific guideline, WP:EVENT, my argument is already in my nomination, but to quickly add, criterion #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT states that "Routine kinds of news events including accidents, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Per what I've stated above, nothing gives this accident additional enduring significance, even if tragic. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Delete per

"Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Most if not all of the news articles originated in the aftermath of the accident which makes most of them primary because, "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." To expand further, to qualify as a secondary source, the coverage would have to contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. None of what I find qualifies as such. In my opinion, there really isn't significant coverage since coverage never really expands outside of the plane suffering a runway excursion."

@Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this can't be closed as a Soft Deletion as there is a previous AFD. But to participants, if your "vote" changes, please strike out your previous vote to avoid the confusion. Right now, I see three bolded votes from the same editor. There should only be one per person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are indeed no further reports of this incident (see WP:EVENTCRIT) after 2015, and secondary references are few or even nonexistent compared to other articles on similar topics (see ). Probably doesn't deserve its own article. Pygos (talk) 06:33, 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.

Shri Krishna (1993 TV series)

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

Sources on the page are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE found nothing reliable, just more of the same. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_DD_National#Drama_series. I was thinking of redirect to the production company Sagar Films but this has no source on the page. RangersRus (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given the existing coverage (such as https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/after-ramayan-twitterati-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna#google_vignette, https://theprint.in/india/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-now-shri-krishna-to-return-on-dd/407561/ etc etc); or redirect (/as a historically important series for/) to the network. Very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hinduism. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Mushy Yank said above, remove some sources, and find more reliable sources, but very opposed to deletion Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather keep it and do more research on it. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, but it takes some time to find some reliable sources. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All articles talk about the same thing, just their matter is different, even with some or for say a lot of digging can be done but it results to the repetitive articles. Though for me deletion is not okay. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right? RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could've redirected, if for say there was any good mention of it anywhere, but any mentions of it are exotic across wikipedia Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/krishna-cast-here-is-a-list-of-actors-and-the-characters-they-play

https://www.indiatoday.in/television/soaps/story/after-ramayan-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-to-return-on-doordarshan-1670255-2020-04-23

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/after-ramayans-end-viewers-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna/articleshow/75547221.cms

https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/coronavirus/news/after-ramayan-shri-krishna-returns-to-dd/articleshow/75359729.cms

https://www.indiatvnews.com/photos/entertainment-swapnil-joshi-shri-krishna-ramayan-comedy-circus-mahasangram-611899

https://www.filmibeat.com/television/news/2020/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-doordarshan-to-bring-back-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna-298001.html

https://hindi.news18.com/news/entertainment/tv-ramayan-will-end-today-on-doordarshan-shri-krishna-will-start-from-ss-3073219.html

https://www.aajtak.in/entertainment/television/story/krishna-janmashtami-2022-date-18-or-19-august-know-where-is-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-show-cast-tmovf-1519979-2022-08-18

https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/tv/news/when-and-how-to-watch-shree-krishna-on-doordarshan/articleshow/75501800.cms

https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1

https://www.thelivemirror.com/doordarshan-brings-back-shri-krishna/

https://www.latestly.com/entertainment/tv/how-marathi-actor-swwapnil-joshi-became-the-common-link-between-dd-shows-uttar-ramayan-and-sri-krishna-1724038.html

https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/tv/enjoyed-watching-ramayan-now-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-set-to-return-on-doordarshan-611513

https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/photomazza/tv-photogalleries/janmashtami-2023-top-show-shri-krishna-1993-cast-where-is-yashoda-maiya-damini-kanwal-shetty-now/photoshow/msid-103423057,picid-103423197.cms

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-sri-krishna-telecast-time-on-dd-national-doordarshan-sri-krishna-broadcast-timing-daily-1946373/

https://amarujala.com/photo-gallery/entertainment/television/shri-krishna-actor-krishna-aka-sarvadaman-d-banerjee-now-where-is-he

https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-actor-mahendra-muralidhar-dhule-played-bhima-ramanand-sagar-serial-sri-krishna-3-times-played-kumbhakaran-still-looks-like-young-boy/1439996/3/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/shri-krishna-the-show-that-turned-swapnil-joshi-into-god/story-pRZnHUDgao6rAmuqEwsInL.html

https://www.naidunia.com/entertainment/bollywood-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-will-be-retelecast-on-dd-national-form-3-may-2020-know-its-timings-5530789

https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/entertainment/photo-gallery-krishna-janmashtami-2022-know-how-much-shri-krishna-cast-serial-1993-cast-change-in-29-years/1306669

https://hindi.scoopwhoop.com/entertainment/where-is-1993-shri-krishna-show-sudama-actor-mukul-nag/

https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-radha-reshma-modi-played-in-many-bollywood-movie-after-27-years-he-looks-changed-photos-covid-19/1404748/

These are some sources that I found. I think they're reliable Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1. is a wromg source help Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now that you mention that it falls Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA, I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find. (Ignore this here I was trying not to start an argument but oh well.) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But again, I think this show deserves a page. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you changing your vote to delete?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no. I am not. This show is of significance and deserves a page, no arguing Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is what I was thinking, until I kept finding stuff, Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also curious about this edit as you added content that is no where in the source. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cast or the above para? Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Wikipedia we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be WP:OR at best. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any adequate source as all would "apparently fall under Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA", but here's a statement from the production team- https://production.sagarworld.com/shri-krishna Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Production company is considered primary and not secondary independent reliable source. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you need further source, here's an image of it airing on Zee TV, (footage is now deleted and replaced with SD Banerjee) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources.
- Source 1 and 2 are announcement of airing the show.
- Source 3 has passing mention with sale of VCD and the price being sold for.
- Source 4 is primary source sagarworld founded by the son and grandson of Ramanand Sagar, Director and Producer of the show.
- Source 5 is interview wirh Moti Sagar, the youngest son of Director and Producer Ramanand Sagar of the show.
- Source 6 is intervew with Govind Khatri, an actor from the show about what role was originally offered to him and about his life after the series.
- Source 7,8,9,10,11,12 are all about Sarvadaman D. Banerjee (main lead of the show) and interview with him, on his life after the series.

All sources are poor with some WP:NEWSORGINDIA and no reliable source independent of the makers and actors of the show with indepth significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure your assessment is completely correct. Taking just one example, source 5 offers very significant coverage beside an interview, in a bylined article in a very reliable newspaper. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourve 5 says "Krishna made Swapnil Joshi a star overnight; co-director Moti Sagar talks about the TV show." This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to copy and paste the whole article here? The major part is attributed to the journalist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following parts can be attributed Kavita Awaasthi, journalist for The Hindustan Times, based on her interview with Sagar; the media outlet being considered generally reliable, they can be used to verify a number of facts that contribute to the notability of the program, such as, at least:

After making the successful TV show Ramayan, producer Ramanand Sagar wanted to tap into another epic show — the Bhagavat Puran. Produced by Ramanand, Subhash Sagar and Prem Sagar, and directed by Ramanand, Anand Sagar and Moti Sagar, Shri Krishna was one of the biggest grossers for Doordarshan during the seven years it was on air. The national broadcaster had a limit on the number of episodes it could air in the ’80s, but the ’90s brought about a change in these rules. A producer could now make a show for a longer duration.

Music composer Ravindra Jain composed the music for this serial. The title song, ‘Shree Krishna Govind Hare Murari’, became popular in India and abroad. The show ran for more than seven years, and had over 200 episodes. The show covered Krishna’s life, from his birth to the time of his grandchildren.

The show was shot in Gujarat’s Umbergaon and Vadodara, where they put up huge sets.

Swapnil had a huge fan following because of the show. People thought he was Krishna.

This, in my opinion, in a 2016 article about a 1993 program, can be given a certain credit and at least contributes to the apparent notability of the show (that had, as I am sure you have noticed, 221 episodes and originally aired during 6 years.....) and I think that the material, if the page was redirected, would be lost, which would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. (And that's just one source). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{omg finally for goodness' sake someone mentions this, I'm not trying to be rude but why can't someone just read the sources and watch the show for 2 whole minutes to get some fruit out of it. GOD! (replied to mushy yank)} Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Imsaneikigai (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate so called reliable sources present that has not already been analysed above. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Rees

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

Non-notable young player, fails WP:GNG, now playing in non-league and unlikely to be notable any time soon, if at all. Giant Snowman 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes they make it back to the league, most times not. On the face of whats on the article, there is little and certainly not notable on account of WP:BASIC, so delete. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Ashworth

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

Non-notable young player who fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Send to draft space, clearly not main space material. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify obviously and per Govvy Intrisit (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not wholly averse to draftify, but I don't see how that will help in this case. The subject is non notable. They may be notable one day, but is there any reason to believe that will be soon enough that the draft would not expire? If it will be deleted anyway, we might as well let it go now. A WP:REFUND would be available in the future if they became notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel McGregor

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has really changed since the last AFD - yes, he made a few sub appearances at the end of last season (totalling 217 minutes per Soccerway), but there remains no significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping Giant Snowman 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging those at last AFD - @Zoglophie, Anwegmann, and Svartner:. Giant Snowman 07:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage here to meet the WP:GNG, would also consider a SALT here as well. Let'srun (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Considering that the incubation period in draftspace was not respected. Svartner (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale and I'd also advocate for WP:SALTING if this continues after this Afd. zoglophie^•talk• 12:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT, not much more to say, other than this kind of behavior is really annoying. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Woo-ri

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

WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENT subject that failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, and WP:NACTOR criteria(s) showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject apart from passing mention from Genshin Impact and Tooniverse-related shows. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request, which will be considered as endorsement of the views expressed in this discussion. ✗plicit 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Dhaka

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

Sources do not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Rajasthan. GrabUp - Talk 06:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 06:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The sources are poor and promotional with interview of the subject promoting his company. There are no secondary independent reliable sources and I did not find any significant achievements noteworthy to satisfy notability about the subject role as businessman. RangersRus (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable business executive; sourcing in the article is for the business, related to funding and such. All I can bring up are PR or interview items [26]. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable ROTM business person; sources don't come even close to satisfying GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 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.

Crypto naming controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability at minimum requires verifiability in reliable secondary sources of the existence of the article subject: a "controversy" (in cryptography or among cryptographers and professionals in crypto) per title. This was not discussed substantially at the first PROD.
After 3 years, the article has not improved -- there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources that verify the existence of a controversy. The Vice article in section 3 is the only source in the article that actually talks about such a controversy, but it is problematic: it quotes 3 people in online correspondence with no further links: one academic complains about the word "crypto", while another defends language usage generally; the third is a tech professional complaining about the word. It is providing 2 complaints (plus the author's) about the word, but not attempting to report a wider controversy, in academia or the tech professions or anywhere. The rest of the article -- dictionary definitions and all -- becomes WP:SYNTH if the existence of the subject is not firmly established.
There is an option to merge the Vice article into cryptocurrency, but I question whether any of the other quotes in the 3rd section could be due (here or anywhere). SamuelRiv (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Cryptocurrency, and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see evidence of a major "controversy", just a few people complaining. This doesn't rise to the level of notable for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does appear SYNTH. This could perhaps be solved with a disambiguation page for both terms, but nothing beyond that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: There do exist many naming controversies in academic fields, of various degrees of pettiness. What makes them notable is their extensive coverage in major secondary sources. One of my favorites (which my dad was amid and first told me about) (for which we don't have a separate article) is the black hole/trou noir dirty word controversy (think about it, and also remember that black holes have no hair). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article into cryptocurrency per WP:ATD. There is some significant WP:RS that talks about the shift in the meaning of crypto towards cryptocurrency, and that information should be kept on Wikipedia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another idea: how about we move this article to crypto and then move the disambiguation page to crypto (disambiguation)? PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme no. The primary topic of "crypto" would be "cryptocurrency" or "cryptography" long before an article on the debate of the use of the prefix. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Qibin

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

Playing 3 games in the Chinese Super League, as well as 18 more in China League Two, is a weak claim to notability. Sources are two squad listings in table format as well as one match report. As such the player fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Tóth

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 32 minutes in Slovakia’s highest league. Continued in the second tier after that. His name is common, so I searched in conjunction with his club names and came up very light. This, this and this are all just match reports. This is just a summary of who played in the junior squad in 2015. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. By the way, the first three sources are match reports in news format, not like this one as an example on ESPN.1. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geri Selita

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 14 matches in Albania’s highest league. Currently active in the semi-pro second tier; however, I am simply not able to find a single source with something resembling significant coverage. This routine/trivial mention was the best I could find. What do you think? Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I found were a few more transactional announcements (1, 2), but nothing substantial. Fails GNG and SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one as well. Per above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Balla

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 80 minutes in Albania’s highest league. Continued in the semi-pro second tier after that. Searching for sources, I exclusively find databases and trivial mentions, as well as several unrelated namesakes. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deleting all these articles of non-notable football players it taking a lot of time from productive editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage tape

AfDs for this article:

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

I have concerns this does not meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any SIGCOV of this (and some uses refer to tape as in video tape). I checked the cited source (Fulbright 2008, located through AA), and it is a glossary of all things related to sex, and its entry on bondage tape is 122 words. Unless we find more SIGCOV, I think this can at best be redirected to the List of BDSM equipment per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamen Rider Gavv episodes

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

WP:REDUNFORK of Kamen Rider Gavv. It only has 2 episodes as of now which fails WP:TVSPLIT for being WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 episodes as of now, but the series is expected to run weekly for an entire year like every series in the Super Sentai/Kamen Rider franchise. Exukvera (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably draftify it for now. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much episodes are needed so that it can be properly accepted as an article? 10? 20? The series is expected to have 40+ eps. Exukvera (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TVSPLIT it said at least 50 but I saw many list of episodes of animes. Listing 24 as minimum Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a few months this discussion will be pointless. All series in this franchise have a separate episode list because the main article would be too big with it. Some anime episode lists have 12 episodes or less, specially when there are multiple seasons with a separate article for each season. You can consider this as a list for another season in a 50+ yrs long show. Exukvera (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's WP:TOOSOON plus it has a separate article that had an "episode" section Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The episode section in the main article only has the titles. It would be too big with the titles and summaries and references for each ep. All Tokusatsu pages are made in a similar fashion. Exukvera (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll just WP:DRAFTIFY it for the moment until it reaches 24 episodes Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Exukvera (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exukvera, don't move an article being discussed at an AFD to Draft space. It won't stop this discussion. If you would like this article draftified, then cast a vote for "Draftify". But don't take action yourself on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because no one except the nominator has expressed a "vote" on what should happen with this article. I had thought the nominator was arguing for Delete but now I can't tell if you are advocating Draftify. Please do not just discuss an article but cast your bolded vote so the consensus can be determined and this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a perfectly standard WP:SPLITLIST of episodes and it obviously will be expanded, as the show is currently running (now 4 episodes listed....). And please do not take pages to AfD unless you want them deleted or the considered outcome has been challenged. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpology

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

This article is terribly sourced (most sources are unreliable or passing mentions) and my BEFORE is not finding anything better (bunch of sources cite Wikipedia, there is SIGCOV in a self-published book here, etc.). I am not sure if this is not a hoax (creation of a arbcom and site-banned user Meco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but it seems to have serious WP:GNG issues that do not appear to be easily addressed; and the current crappy article, which really belongs in urban dictionary or such, is just lending credence and leading to increasing WP:CITOGENESIS, I fear. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualization Development

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

This article does not distinguish Virtualization development from the concept of virtualization. It was recently changed from a redirect to an article by moving material from timeline of virtualization development, but unfortunately that material does not seem to make it at all clear what the subject matter of this article is intended to be. I would guess from the title it is the use of virtual machines for software development, or the development of virtual machines but I don't think either of these merit their own article at it is also not at all discussed in the article as it stands. It also appears to largely consist of WP:OR, and notability cannot be established since it's unclear what the article is about in the first place. I would propose it be merged into Virtualization but I don't think there's anything in the article worth moving at this time. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Virtualization. A taxonomy of virtualization technologies would benefit the main article. Tule-hog (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's anything worth merging - it duplicates material that's already better covered in Virtualization and Application virtualization (and the timeline section is somewhat misleading, as it's missing the first 25-odd years of history). Adam Sampson (talk) 03:24, 7 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!} 04:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Gallo (politician)

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

This is a local politician at the city government level so fails WP:NPOL. The sourcing does not pass WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG as well. It's telling there is no Italian language wiki page. 4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes need more significant coverages to stand. Xegma(talk) 04:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Election to the regional council of Veneto does not make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of WP NPOL and the broader WP GNG --The editing spirit (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just to be clear, the Regional Council of Veneto is not the city level of government in Venice, it's the first-order divisional legislature of the entire region of Veneto (which is much, much larger than just Venice) — that is, it's equivalent to a state legislature in the US or a provincial parliament in Canada, not to a city council. Venice's city council is the Consiglio Comunale di Venezia, not the Regional Council of Veneto. So this certainly needs improvement, but he was a state/province-level officeholder under WP:NPOL #1, not a "city councillor" under NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, could editors arguing for Deletion counter Bearcat's information? Does it make a difference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat; as a regional council member, he would pass WP:NPOL. I understand the confusion and the difficulties in finding sources. My Italian is poor, and my Veneto is even worse (I bought a 30-day pass instead of two day passes for the people mover). On top of that, there’s a different Giovanni Gallo who works and lives in Veneto who is a potentially notable public health scholar who has published well-cited articles about HIV (called HiB in Italian), coronavirus, and hepatitis. Then of course the famous choreographer from Venice, Giovanni Gallo (choreographer). Giovanni is the Italian name for John, and Gallo is an extremely common family name in Italy, so ordinary searches for this name is like sifting between needles and hay. In any case, I think these sources might be good: 1 2, 3, and 4. Of these sources and others, some are just a passing reference that the subject spoke out in favor of a local energy law and such, but overall I think it is just enough for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom

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

Fails WP:LISTN, very limited discussion about importance of MPs being landlords among indepdent RSs, with the whole list just being primary sourced from the UK Parliament. WP:UNDUE. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:UNDUE SecretSpectre (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + keeping the list up to date will be a lot of work, as MPs and their properties come and go. Wire723 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is already met by the category: :List of Landlord MPs of the United Kingdom DimensionalFusion 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- Notability: This topic passes WP:LISTN (WP:NLIST). This guideline states "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  - There are multiple reliable sources discussing this group, naming many of those included in it, in this parliament and in previous ones (as far back as 2014, at least, up to 2024): Sky, Guardian, FT, BBC, Jacobin, Tribune, Yahoo Finance, Big Issue, Channel 4, New Statesman.
- This alone is sufficient reason to keep, but for completeness I'll address other arguments made above:
  - Primary sources: Given that notability is established by the above secondary reliable sources, the use of primary sources alone is not an argument for deletion. The primary sources in this article are used for verifiability, not notability.
    - These primary sources are suitable as, per WP:PRIMARY:
      - they are "reputably published", by UK Parliament
      - there is no interpretation of the sources; they are only used to make "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (NB. per WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research"..)
      - per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". This source, UK parliament’s register of members’ interests, is explicitly mentioned by name in coverage from at least the FT, Sky, Guardian.
  - Undue weight: As I understand it, this is part of the NPOV policy about the content of an article, not whether an article should exist or not. As above, notability is established by reliable sources. The "background" section of the article attempts to keep due weight between criticism of landlord MPs and the view that these criticisms are too simplistic, but I'd welcome any improvements on this.
  - Duplicates a category: WP:NOTDUPE states "Arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A signifcant portion of RS coverage is just to do with the scandal involving Jas Athwal. I do not consider a few RS articles on some MPs being landlords to sufficently justify a a list on the subject. I mean there were a number of articles around the time of private gentlemen's only (until this year) clubs like the Garrick Club and the MPs who were memebers of them but that does not justify list creation in my opinion. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but generalise to an article: the topic of landlord MPs has indeed been raised in the past, but the list at present is a snapshot of the situation as at the most recent declarations of interests. (How often do they have to update? Annual declaration, or as circumstances change?) The links above show earlier figures. A useful article could assemble all those various figures from articles, while including the current list. I have more doubts about the category Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was added, unsourced, to a couple of items on my watchlist. I don't think it's a useful category, and I don't think it will be maintained. In both the category and the list there is what I see as a problem in including MPs who are renting out their own permanent home while relocating to their constituency or London, ie landlords of a single residential property, almost "amateur" landlords, with those who have a portfolio of properties "professional" landlords. This distinction is made visible in the list, but not in the category. The present list could be made more useful if it included data from past parliaments. The category cannot be justified unless a source (the register of interests) is added to each MP's page, and is then checked every time there is a new register to ensure that those who are no longer landlords are removed: unrealistic. A list can be more clearly identified as a snapshot in time. PamD 19:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PamD; this is a fair rationale RE: the category and useful feedback on the article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, the article has transient notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. Why? The article appears to have been created soon after this news story broke. Many MPs for hundreds of years have been property landlords, and they can't all have owned perfect properties; but now it's suddenly newsworthy. The article is titled "List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom", but that title does not qualify the inclusion criteria by timeframe - however, it lists sitting MPs, so to avoid WP:UNDUE, the article should be expanded to include former MPs who had a property portfolio, and I expect that if it is to be at all comprehensive, it would soon become unwieldy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, historically most MPs would have been country gentlemen, landowners and landlords of vast acreages and dozens of peasant hovels! If this list/article is to survive, it needs much clearer definition of its scope. PamD 12:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand for the reasons stated by Jonathan Deamer and by Redrose64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejakyo (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are we going to include every MP for the past hundreds of years? Every peer, MSP, Assembly member? What happens if an MP buys a property, that we aren't aware of, and therefore aren't included even if they are a landlord. I don't think this article will work. DotCoderr (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peers, MSPs, and MSs are not MPs Bejakyo (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could editors arguing for Delete rebut the Keep arguments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. It's also hard to justify having such a list, which seems to have arisen from one news event. Maintaining the list will also be difficult, and I can see it becoming out of date very soon.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DUPLICATE. Seems to just copy from Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and not to mention this will have to be updated regularly but given the note for the Labour MP who is the largest landlord, it seems to me to be a little WP:POV to me (as someone very much non-Labour). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E I think the duplication goes the other way, with the categorisations being an unsourced duplication of this article. The category is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 21:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
seen as the category has been deleted following PamD's nomination, I believe it's now even more needed to keep this article Bejakyo (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:LISTN. Sir MemeGod  13:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename/generalise Supporting PamD's proposal, as this is an issue that has frequently received media coverage and commentary, this is likely the best thing to do with the info currently here. Seconding Bejayko above that the now-deleted category being a duplicate is a reason in favour of this. Iostn (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heimdall (software)

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

Written somewhat promotionally. Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I suggest restoring the redirect that was there before it was replaced. Rusty 🐈 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Rusty 🐈 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. I think there are not enough Wikipedia-suitable sources for this article. An article on the proprietary implementation of the protocol (Odin) exists and is notable, we can restore the redirect back to there. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirected, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original redirect was Odin (firmware flashing software)#Heimdall but that should be confirmed here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smarter Planet

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
The quality was not improved in a decade or more
To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IBM as part of brand and reputation section. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the commitment by IBM to this direction is real and notable. The article has sources, and while some updating might be appropriate that is not a reason to delete. Merging would not appropriate as this is different. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keratin implantation cyst

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

Only one source. I looked in the book that this page uses as a source and it dedicates very little space to the topic and doesn't have any sources. Based off what I could find this topic doesn't meet GNG. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be merged and redirected to the same place as Keratin cyst. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be describing the same condition. I can't believe I missed this redirect in my search. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye (song)

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

I could not find significant coverage of this single in reliable sources. Fenix Funeral Directors is a website for a funeral home, and the source is titled "Top 10 Runrig Songs For a Funeral". This article can be redirected to Runrig discography, where its chart information is recorded. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Doing a BEFORE search is annoying here because the band's origin in the Isle of Skye is frequently mentioned, but this song doesn't appear to have been written about. Mach61 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out the recently added subsection regarding coverage of high profile controversy around the charting position of "Skye", which would indicate a degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two Music Week articles are primary sources, so they don't establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What more do you seriously want? I have provided information on what was clearly a significant event at the time. On one hand, you point out "self published sources" as not being enough, and on the other, you are equally unhappy with published magazines. What is it you are exactly looking for? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, significant coverage of a song is something like a review, an analysis of its themes or structure, or a discussion of its role in popular culture. I listed some sources that I would consider significant on the talk page for An Ubhal as Àirde (The Highest Apple), which I did find to be a notable single by Runrig. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~For what it's worth, I tried and failed (at a level approaching WP:BEFORE) to find an independent description of this supposed controversy.~~ Finally was able to load the Music Week (some kind of geoblock I think). I agree the 19 January 1985 article certainly seems like significant coverage. The 26-1-85 issue is just recapping the 19-1 story and saying bad weather was delaying the investigation.
Voorts why is this primary? Music Week doesn't mention being part of Gallup. I can't imagine it is/was based on the tone and third-person references in the articles, but maybe you have reasons. Oblivy (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, reporting on an evolving investigation makes it a primary source. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me to that essay. There seems to be a disconnect between a reporter writing as an eyewitness (see "investigative reports" and footnote a of the essay) and a reporter relying on primary sources generated elsewhere to write an article. I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure you're right this article fits the situation described in the essay let alone policy. I'm not seeing a second significant source in the article-for-deletion, so it may not matter. Oblivy (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring more to the breaking news example, as well as the portion above the examples, which discusses how writing about an event immediately after it occurs is based on the writers' interpretation of events and is thus a primary source. See, for example, this quote: ""Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described ..." voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Charting at 108th place isn't terribly notable. Outside of the charts listed, I don't see any reviews or analyses of the song. Could perhaps redirect to the album? Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 TAC Cup 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 competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates the 25 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 a decent amount of non-routine individual coverage, as a WP:BEFORE search will attest; but this coverage is all primarily 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. I note also that 19 of the 25 articles (those from 2000–2018) are currently based entirely on a single database reference, and those which aren't are almost entirely from non-independent sources. I see no valid alternative to deletion and that all content worth saving is already found on the main Talent League page.

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

Aspirex (talk) 22:10, 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)} 23:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry, but that's way too much for me to work through to see if it needs deletion or not. WP:TRAINWRECK. Govvy (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: TRAINWRECK is a term for AfDs that cover many topics, but fail because the topics are too dissimilar – some are notable, others aren't. But surely any given TAC Cup season will be about as notable as the next? What makes you think TRAINWRECK applies here? – Teratix ₵ 02:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is possible that I did not make clear enough that these pages are all different seasons of the same competition with different sponsored names. Aspirex (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Aspirex and Teratix: Because on my first look, I assumed the AfD was for two different leagues. I didn't say don't delete, I just felt it was too much on one AfD. Maybe splitting between two AfDs might have been easier to manage for some people such as myself. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a strong case for deletion on the face of it – I would be surprised if enough sources exist for individual seasons of a state-level underage development competition. The point Aspirex makes about TAC Cup coverage mainly focusing on individual players or general aspects of competition structure, not specific results, rings true to me. – Teratix ₵ 02:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aspirex, this AFD is not formatted correctly for a bundled nomination. You can't just write down a list of linked articles and consider them to be included in this nomination, our closing tool, XFDcloser will not recognize them as nominated articles. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD for nominating multiple articles and format this nomination correctly. No matter how this discussion is closed, this needs to happen. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Liz (talk · contribs) Thanks. Did this edit fix it or have I still missed something? Aspirex (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirex, everything looks good. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Verma

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unnotable. Not a key member of the Himesh team as he is not even mentioned on Himesh's article. Same weak references from previous AFDs. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My concern regarding this nomination is that it overlooks the substantial updates made since the last discussion, including the inclusion of relevant sources published after August 2020. Despite the availability of reputable articles from sources like The Diplomat, Hindustan Times, and Times of India, I have focused on incorporating recent sources to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines for establishing notability.

Extended content ((non-)sources)

1. Notability and Wikipedia Mentions:The statement "as he is not even mentioned on Himesh's article" highlights a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being mentioned on another Wikipedia page does not, by itself, establish a subject's notability. What is crucial for establishing notability are independent, reliable sources that document the subject’s contributions and achievements.

In this case, the subject demonstrates notability through various reliable sources that cover both aspects of their career—both as an indie artist and a Bollywood musician. The presence of multiple independent sources that cover different facets of their career supports the argument for notability. Still ypu can check him mentioned in the core team in many different projects including Action Jackson (2014 film).

Additionally, coverage in independent sources for distinct work profiles (Bollywood and indie music) further strengthens the claim for notability, as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. Getting covered for two different work profile (Bollywood & Indie Music) also cancles WP:1E.

2. *Independent Artist Notability:

The nominator’s comment in the recent nomination mentions "same weak references from previous AFDs." However, the subject's notability as an independent artist is well-supported by reliable sources published after the last discussion in August 2020. This period of time has allowed for the accumulation of substantial coverage and recognition of the subject’s work as an indie artist, distinct from their collaborations with Himesh Reshammiya. The updated sources included in the article reflect this enhanced recognition and demonstrate the subject’s notability within the indie music scene.

The new sources provided in the article explicitly highlight the subject’s achievements in the indie music scene, demonstrating a clear and ongoing recognition of their notability. The passage of time since the last discussion has enabled a more comprehensive evaluation of the subject's contributions, as reflected in the present sources

While articles used from sources such as The Diplomat, Hindustan Times, and Times of India in the last discussion that could have been used, I have adhered to Wikipedia guidelines by incorporating only those sources published after the last deletion discussion. This approach ensures that the references are up-to-date and relevant for establishing the subject's notability.

Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 12:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. 7 sources on the page and from it 5 sources on the page are not independent of the musician or ensemble itself. They are also promotional materials. Source india.com is unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. 1 other source fail significant coverage worthy of notice to consider notability. I did not find information if the singer released two or more notable albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels or won any awards. I can not find any source where the singer has had a single or album on national music chart or has been in any international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. I see the subject missing all criteria for a notable singer. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per all the many and varied reasons given at previous AfDs, DRs, etc., with particular reference to ANYBIO (done nothing to fulfil any criteria), BLPSOURCES (no independent, reliable third party sources support an assertion of notability), NMUSIC (ditto: criteria fail) and NOTADVERT (fundamentally the root of these repeated attempts to inflict this article upon us). The time may yet still come when his career trajectory makes such a change in dynamic as to justify a neutral, source-based, independently-written article. That time is not now, however. SerialNumber54129 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cheng-De Winne

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

Nothing more than a promotional piece; fails GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Some coverage [27], [28], but it's celebrity gossip articles. Nothing really to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many sources here, including this, this, this, this, this and this. There's also this and this already in the article. Clearly passes GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable newspaper sources identified above which together show a pass of WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are reliable even if they are in english, and TODAY is a reliable source. Alon9393 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as Somebodyidkfkdt pointed out, subject has sufficient coverage to not warrant a WP:GNG-based deletion. Sir MemeGod  13:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IVNFIL

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

No evidence of sigcov for musicians given in article, can't find on a quick google search. seefooddiet (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GMA article is significant coverage. The others no, and nothing found on my own WP:BEFORE search (which is not just a "quick google search"). Will reconsider if further sources are identified. Oblivy (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried searching in .kr websites, mostly just track listings come up. This was about all else I could find [29], which is an interview and likely not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no real signs of notoriety here, it's mainly a concern of WP:BLP1E which is visible in the article header, which includes "mainly notable for being in a YouTube video" but nothing. Alon9393 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and per other users suggesting this is being used for promotion. Isha Sattar (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think others suggested promotion is happening; it's possible but not clear cut to me. seefooddiet (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  13:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331348478_The_prospects_of_the_Northern_and_Arctic_territories_and_their_development_within_the_Yenisei_Siberia_megaproject
^ https://www.iwgia.org/en/russia/1484-russia-evenki-hydroelectric-dam-pops-up-again

[1] "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[2] "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[3] "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[4] "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

[5] ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/331348478_The_prospects_of_the_Northern_and_Arctic_territories_and_their_development_within_the_Yenisei_Siberia_megaproject

[6] ttps://www.iwgia.org/en/russia/1484-russia-evenki-hydroelectric-dam-pops-up-again

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]