Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 07	September 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Akinloye

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Leaning weak keep, because there are sources that point to significant coverage about him. I am just that not sure if there is consensus (doesn't seem like it on archived RS feed) that conclude tribuneonlineng.com or guardian.ng to be generally unreliable. Those two plus a couple of paragraphs on thenationonlineng.net, make up reason to pass WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very much not notable, from the "30 under 30 list" to the typical puffy articles from Nigerian media, this individual isn't suitable for wikipedia. I'm not finding any suitable sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the sources are significant coverage and that there's enough volume here to pass GNG. But otherwise I'm with Oaktree - these are promotional, puffy, and non-WP:RS sources. -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A bit early, but this is WP:SNOW at this point. asilvering (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckage (Pearl Jam song)

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

Charts not withstanding, I don't see any coverage of this song besides the short, press release-derived announcement articles every single gets (stereoboard), or entirely derivative of Eddie Vedder's promotional interviews on the Sunday Times and the Howard Stern Show (Variety). Redirection is reccomended. Mach61 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mach61 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the album topped the US Mainstream Rock chart - that essentially means it was the most popular song at rock radio in the entire country. Beyond that, dedicated coverage was extremely easy to find:

Normally, I'd suggest a WP:BEFORE search wasn't follows through on, but some of these were in the article already, so I'm not really sure what's going on with this nomination. This song topped multiple major song charts. Extremely bizarre to think this is the sort of song that isn't notable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 I clicked on literally all of these links before nominating. The People and aforementioned Variety articles fall under "derivative of interview", the Billboard articles are primary sourceing for their own chart and impression numbers, and the Rolling Stone, UCR, and Louder articles fall under PR-dervied announcements published right after the single dropped. Nothing linked here has in-depth, independent critical analysis of the song. Mach61 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess the problem is your interpretation of the notability criteria. You're setting the bar way too high. Not to mention, common sense alone should deter you from nominating WP:GOODCHART chart-toppers. The logistics of a song topping major charts and not getting the bare minimum handful of sources is exceedingly low. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews may be primary sources but once an article is "derivative of the interview" it is secondary. The Billboard articles are primary sourcing for their own chart, but the article being nominated for deletion is not Billboard's chart, but the song "Wreckage", and so Billboard is a secondary source for that topic. Rlendog (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog Interviews may be primary sources but once an article is "derivative of the interview" it is secondary. Not true. See WP:secondary does not mean secondhand. Mach61 23:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is an essay, not a guideline. Secondly, it is consistent with what I said - a secondary source "is based on primary and other secondary source material, and may include synthesis and novel conclusions." (bold added). Rlendog (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The subject is the song, not the chart. For this subject, Billboard is not a primary source. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dark Matter (Pearl Jam album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere I'm quite surprised to see this response considering we generally have common readings on the notability standards, and this nomination is horribly flawed. Can you expand a bit more? This song didn't just chart, it topped multiple charts and there's no shortage of WP:RSMUSIC approved sources writing dedicated coverage centered around it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 I must've posted my comment at the same time as yours because I didn't see it. Seeing you put it in perspective and looking through the sources you posted, it does look a lot more convincing than I initially thought. I've stricken my vote; I think I come out neutral on the question now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable enough to me. A prominent single from Pearl Jam's latest album, and the coverage is there. Personally I don't think rock radio number-ones matter so much in 2024 (or any radio format, because everything is so online), but without that I would still find it notable enough. Ss112 06:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources both already in the article and presented above (albeit with some overlap between the two) are beyond sufficient. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes ~~WP:NALBUMS~~ with the added sources above. cyberdog958^Talk 07:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:SINGLE. cyberdog958^Talk 08:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily. Something is off about this nomination because all the reliable sources we need were already in the article at the time of nomination. I will try not to speculate on motives. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog Which two to three sources above show the GNG beeting met? Mach61 19:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are, if you interpret the guidance on secondary sources correctly. Sources derived from primary sources by independent authors are secondary sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is unanimous that the sources I listed contribute to meeting the GNG. This is silly. Nothing but the biggest of blockbuster songs would have articles if we went by your standard. What you're proposing is simply not in line with the community's interpretation of the notability standard. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, easily meets WP:NSINGLE given its high chart placements and coverage in reliable sources. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Sergecross73. Those sources is good enough for WP:NSINGLE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 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. ✗plicit 23:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Shadows

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

Fails WP:NBAND. I found no reliable sources about them. I see no verifiable claim of notability on the article. Badbluebus (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, United States of America, and California. Badbluebus (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Hong Kong, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I considered supporting a a selective merge/redirect to Rockit Hong Kong Music Festival because the article says, "The initial incarnation of the band appeared on stage at the final Rockit Hong Kong Music Festival, where the band was billed as Spencer Douglass." However, I decided against that because I could not find any reliable sources verifying this. I could not find any reliable sources that discuss Eastern Shadows, so I support deletion under Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It looks like there is now a consensus to Keep this article. If you are interested in Redirection, that's a discussion that can happen on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Math Lady

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

There is no extra info here that isn't already present on Renata Sorrah#Meme. I propose that this page be redirected there. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough WP:GNG for a separate article & potential for expansion. As a Brazilian, I can confirm that there are multiple other sources available in Portuguese that can be added to expand the article. Skyshiftertalk 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would believe you, it'd be much better if you linked them. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share some of these sources? My own search wasn't entirely fruitless but the articles I did find don't add much; certainly nothing that couldn't just be added to Renata Sorrah#Meme. GhostOfNoMeme 12:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Nazaré Confusa" reveals dozens of sources. Some examples are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. It is also mentioned in multiple scholarly articles [9]. Skyshiftertalk 18:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's a greater number of sources than I had been able to find (my Google search for "Nazaré Confusa" was returning completely off-topic results by page 4). I got zero hits on Google News; I hadn't even thought to check Google Scholar, given the topic — good call. I've changed my !vote to Keep after reviewing the links. GhostOfNoMeme 03:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Mathematics, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfDs are for deletion not for discussing if a redirect is appropriate. That should have been made on the talk page of the article. And only if such a discussion had not allowed to reach any consensus should we have been discussing this here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, it's not unusual for a nominator to propose a Redirect or Merge instead of a Deletion. In fact, it's pretty common so I don't understand why you are scolding this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry if I sounded agressive but I mentioned this because if they don’t wish deletion or think it’s a fair or even possible outcome, they should not open an AfD but rather discuss the merge on the merge discussion they can open and the redirect on the talk page, or boldly redirect the page and explain why. If my advice was wrong, I apologise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-R: If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Only applies to redirecting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but please, I must insist, and quote your quote:"If the change is disputed via a reversion": was this the case here? and did I mean anything else in my initial comment? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's Math Lady, she deserves it. That being consensus before effectively blanking a popular thing on the internet. This is just WP:BOLD all over. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea of what you mean by that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the subject's popularity, BLARing might be controversial. In accordance with BOLD, such actions should be discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. But that was and is exactly my point: why take (potentially notable or apparently popular) pages to Afds if you suggest a redirect i.e. if you think a redirect is to be considered? Just ASK competent users. Discussions can happen ON TALK PAGES OF ARTICLES: that is why they have been created. USE TALK PAGES not AfDs. (I’m not shouting, nor upset, mere emphasis). Thanks again. I’ll leave this discussion now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, AfDs suggest redirects all the time. It's pretty much just accepted. See: Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? which ended in: Allowing the nominator to advocate redirect is current practice, and this debate shows no consensus to change that. The case is also well made that this has obvious utility in establishing an unambiguous consensus that an article should not exist in its own right, even if a redirect is appropriate.

On the other hand: There is a clear numerical and policy-weighed consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged. The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold. – from this discussion. Nevertheless, deciding to head straight to AfD is arguably itself WP:BOLD! Regardless, it's a fairly regular occurrence that rarely gets questioned or challenged. I don't see the harm in it, myself. GhostOfNoMeme 13:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Am I therefore correct to assume that there is no consensus regarding the question? I apologise if I was wrong or too harsh but my personal view remains unchanged: AfDs take time and efforts and involve many or at least various users; they are limited in time; my point is that they should be used for deletion and deletion only or at least only if deletion is considered a fair outcome by the nominator. Talk pages exist for a reason and if a rough consensus is reached to redirect or if a redirect is explained and unchallenged on the talk page (or boldly performed, and not challenged nor reverted, obviously), AfDs should not even be considered (imho). Thanks again, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates for BLAR often have little attention and little page watching. Combined with the absence of a categorizing template to attract foreign attention, I expect many such talk page proposals to have little participation.
To me and many others, BLAR and merging are just deletion with extra steps: slapping a redirect on it and, in the latter case, adding content to the merge target. I don't see how that takes so much more effort, why it should take unlimited time, or how the core question on whether the article can stand alone is any different. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Films/television/music..and Web etc have categorized templates; and I beg to differ: AfDs take more effort, or at least a different kind of efforts, in particular because they are limited in time (I am not saying they should not), and the core question is not the same (should we delete this#can we redirect this?). Also, people on the talk page of an article are in general more competent regarding the topic and are generally there with the idea of improving the page (and with more knowledge or more interest for the topic) (with time), not getting rid of potential crap (in a hurry). Different mindsets (in general; obviously the same persons might show up at both venues). In the present case, if this had been discussed before, that would have saved us some time, I think, as this will be kept and should not imv have come here and wouldn’t have if it had been discussed thoroughly with knowledgeable competent willing users on the talk page. Also taking the page to Afd might be disheartening for the creator and casts a shadow of doubt on the page, it is not a random let alone insignificant maintenance process and this shows through the tag (during the 8 days or 1 month of the discussion) and through the Old Afd template (unexperienced readers might see it and think ’Hey, look, wait, they say this might be rubbish’) A talk page where redirect is discussed offers none of these shortcomings, at least in my opinion as reader. Anyway, maybe this is not the place for such a long discussion, and thank you for your input and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even considering Portuguese-language sources I was able to find, coverage doesn't seem significant enough that it can't, per nom, simply go into Renata Sorrah#Meme. A standalone article is unwarranted. GhostOfNoMeme 12:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Skyshifter kindly replied to share the Portuguese-language sources she had referenced some days earlier, and after reading through them I'm changing my vote. Her sources are more numerous than I had been able to find myself, and a majority appear to be WP:RS. The coverage is more than passing mention and the focus is on the meme itself; not wholly separate from Renata Sorrah, naturally, but sufficiently so in my view to establish separate notability. The Google Scholar search was an interesting avenue I hadn't thought to explore. With WP:GNG satisfied I think the article should be kept. GhostOfNoMeme 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 23:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sky's linked sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP: HEY if the sources found are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Laos–Russia relations. Consensus is against keep, and redirect is an obvious WP:ATD. asilvering (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Moscow

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

Zero secondary sources. No indication whatsoever of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD featured multiple false claims that "all embassies are inherently notable". AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Laos–Russia relations as is the usual outcome for these non-notable embassy buildings. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is possible that the building might have notability beyond its current function. Per Izvestii︠a︡: Vol. 13. Narodna biblioteka "Kiril i Metodiĭ". 1973. p. 538 at the same address there would have been the Czechoslovak embassy, but so far I haven't been able to decipher the chronology. --Soman (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so ru.wiki has an article on the building per se, at ru:Особняк А. К. Ферстер — Михельсона as a historical architectural monument. I'd say that as such the notability can be established. Furthermore the article can be fleshed out with a bit of history of the embassy. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need sources, the Russian Wikipedia article is lacking them. It does not establish notability for this article. AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. The Russian article is lacking sources so hard to argue for notability on the basis of that. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important for Laos - Russia relationship Cantab12 (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "important" is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mangoe. No extant sourcing discussed to warrant keeping in the above comments. Redirection is the preferred alternative to deletion. czar 18:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. It can be redirected to Laos–Russia relations. The notability of the building, as mentioned above, does not establish notability for this article ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to rescue at the moment and very weak. Alon9393 (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Tony (North Carolina rapper)

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

This is very much centred on WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Crime, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event in question that they are known for is a murder that has extensive coverage by news sources and should pass WP:PERP due to the obscene nature of the crime. cyberdog958^Talk 21:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per GOMM reasoning below, I change my vote to delete. Other than around the time of the crime and his sentencing, I couldn't find any other coverage about the crime. cyberdog958^Talk 07:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PERP. The latter states that an article should exist only if the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual, to the extent it has become a well-documented historic event. Neither the motivation (to increase standing in a gang) nor the execution (drive-by shooting) are unusual. That it involved children is undeniably shocking and unusual. The article Murders of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña, for example, covers two young children randomly murdered as part of a gang initiation. But WP:PERP also says that historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role — this is clearly not met in the case of Lil Tony. There has been no sustained coverage; the killings made the news in 2019, at the time of the event, and briefly again at sentencing in 2022, but there has been zero news coverage since. Nothing written in 2023, nothing written in 2024. Contrast this with Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña, killed in 1993, who have been written about extensively, with entire books (Pure Murder) dedicated to their killing, news articles ranging from the 1990s all the way through to 2024, and even a 2023 ABC documentary. In the case of Lil Tony, coverage has demonstrably not persisted beyond contemporaneous news coverage, so WP:PERP is not met. Nor does he seem notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG either, and we're definitely in WP:BLP1E territory. GhostOfNoMeme 05:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with GONM above, the crime itself does not have sustained coverage to confer the notability to the perpetrator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Bernhard Künzle

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

Per https://meta.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Special:CentralAuth/Strangers_Eyes, creator is globally blocked as "Spam-only account: probable coordinated undisclosed paid editing." Snowman304|talk 19:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Snowman304|talk 19:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see amended article with references and citations ChrisK5566 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tried .ch websites only in a search, and can only find what are brief biographical profiles on company websites. Nothing to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made significant edits and improvements to this page, adding citations and sources for notability. ChrisK5566 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article appears to have been created by a dubious source. I have added significant factual corrections and citations to improve this article. ChrisK5566 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly edited this article for accuracy; I am the subject of this article ChrisK5566 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b. Nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV. The only person advocating to keep the article is the subject himself, who likely paid for the article to be created in the first place given the author was blocked for UPE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many times do we have to tell spammers that self-published sources are not trustworthy? Bearian (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in North Korea#Consulates general. asilvering (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of China, Chongjin

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

Consulates are rarely notable. I'm certainly not seeing how this one is, with lines such as "The consulate expressed "deep condolences" after Kim Jong-il's death in 2011". Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and North Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that consulates are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in North Korea#Consulates general, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one so far argues to keep the article. Whether to delete or redirect, though, could use more input. Why keep the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Responding to the relist comment, it is useful to keep the history per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion so that non-admins have access to the content and the sources. This gives non-admins the option to reuse the content and sources to expand and source other articles like List of diplomatic missions in North Korea#Consulates general. This gives non-admins the option to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future (and reuse some of the previous content) without having to ask an admin to undelete the article. The page history does not contain WP:BLP violations or copyright violations so there is no harm to retaining the redirect. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me very unlikely sources will be "found in the future" about this consulate. There's also very little useful content or sources to retain behind the redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that editor who conducts an in-depth search in Korean-language or Chinese-language sources could find enough information about this consulate to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The article contains useful information about the consulate's history and list of consuls. Some of this information could be selectively merged to another article like China–North Korea relations, List of diplomatic missions of China, or List of diplomatic missions in North Korea. There is no harm in preserving the article's history under the redirect, which is why I support retaining the history so it is accessible to non-admins. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, redirecting makes more sense than deleting. It's possible more sources could be found in the future (North Korea hosts very few foreign consulates, so this is a pretty distinctive subject) and it's possible the material in the history could be useful for other articles. The redirect would also be helpful for navigation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. After several relists, there is still a split between keeping and merging, and also disagreement about the target of such a merge. However, I don't see anyone (except the nominator) arguing for an outright deletion of the article, so a NC close seems appropriate. Any issues with the article's title or whether or not to merge can be done by ordinary editing outside the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greedflation

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

I know Shrinkflation exists, but not every neologism needs its own page, many times pages such as this require much more substantial coverage to show the term is lasting and not simply a product of WP:Recent as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a distinct concept and one that is widely discussed in politics around the world and needs its own page to reflect that discussion. Also, the article when this notice was posted had 48 references - how many references does an article need to show that it is notable?

Update: Keep and move to: Sellers' inflation - this is a more encyclopedic/academic synonym.
The article also has incorporated some of the feedback given here including shifting away from listing examples to two new sections:
1) 'Mechanisms' which outlines the drivers of sellers' inflation according to this theory (information assymetry and monopoly power)
2) 'Proposed remedies' that quickly summarizes the tools proposed to address inflation under this theory (e.g. windfall profit taxes and price caps). Superb Owl (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but severely trim down. The cited sources are reliable and significant, but we don't need so many of them. The article is basically a definition followed by a laundry list of every conceivable example. The concept can be adequately described in a couple of paragraphs. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree on there being too many examples - have been working to trim, summarize and organize the more reliable sources to incorporate your feedback but any tips on which remaining examples are excessive would be helpful Superb Owl (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Price gouging. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this content came from price gouging but was rejected for being broader than price gouging which is a legal threshold in many places, whereas greedflation is a spectrum of legal and illegal activity (depending on the place) Superb Owl (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inflation is not illegal. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Superb Owl (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Price gouging. soibangla (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Price gouging. Shrinkflation is an example of price gouging and would naturally fit very well there. The Price Gouging article only mentions "Shrinkflation" in passing, currently... a merge would fix that. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article only mentions shrinkflation once in passing Superb Owl (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant 'greedflation' of course. It gets hard sometimes, keeping all the neologisms straight. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I now think that a Merge !vote into Price gouging would also make sense, with the content greatly condensed too. I am ok with either a merge or a delete closing. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that Price Gouging is more accurately an example of Greedflation, rather than the other way around. A lot of these sorts of terms are also very contentiously defined on the internet, and there's a substantive lack of authoritative positions on it on Wikipedia or elsewhere. MasterOfGrey(MoG) (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as seen in discussion so far, the relationship between greedflation/sellers' inflation and price gouging is not really clear to me; can't tell from scanning both articles. I'm not comfortable voting until it's clearer. I think it's possible that the articles can have sufficiently different scope to merit separate articles. seefooddiet (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this once. While, numerically, more editors are arguing for a Merge, several editors believe that this subject is distinct from that of the merge target article (and one of those editors said so without offering a bolded "vote"). So, I think the difference of opinion is worth considering for a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different Merge, I am not certain that "Seller's inflation" and so called "Greedflation" are the same thing, but regardless, I am now thinking that the better merge might be on the Inflation article instead of Price gouging. Either way, I still believe that either merge (to Inflation or Price gouging) is an improvement over keeping this hyper-recent neologism as its own article. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sub-section on Inflation would be best. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a relatively modern coined term and was a candidate for Word of the Year by Collins Dictionary in 2023. The sourcing is good for the page to remain. --美しい歌 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, one needs to assess whether the concept is most known by this term. IgelRM (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The Price gouging page seems like a better place for this content, at least some of it. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1) Having trouble seeing where the current version would fit in either the price gouging or the inflation articles. 2) The topic seems very notable and is not the same as price gouging (which is just one way to cause sellers' inflation) (update: did not know commenting twice was not allowed) Superb Owl (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @Superb Owl was the creator of the original "Greedflation" page, and has already cast a !vote in the earlier listing. My understanding is that one does not get to !vote again after a closing admin relists a AfD discussion. I would respectfully ask @Superb Owl to do a ~~strikethrough~~ of this latest comment.

Also, just to clarify, since I did comment above again after the relisting as a Different Merge, but that was new information, not more of the same. Also, I am still perfectly satisfied with a Merge into Price gouging if that is the most well-defined consensus as demonstrated above. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your second comment was what confused me and did not know that is how relisting comments worked - thanks for letting me know. Superb Owl (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, personally I feel like "greedflation" is kind of a left-wing buzzword more than it's an actual concept that needs a mention on wikipedia.

I think greedflation should redirect to https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=2021%E2%80%932023_inflation_surge. It doesn't really warrant its own page. MJThomasH (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the consensus would appear to be somewhat in favor of the merge, but I would like to add that the Keep !votes have been largely devoid of policy arguments. Both WP:NEO and WP:Recent as mentioned on the Merge side seem to clearly should that "Greedflation" is too recent to warrant inclusion and having its own unique article. The coverage also is often more about "Sellers' inflation", so regardless that should be the name of the new section when merged over to Price gouging. 170.170.200.174 (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I see the concept as often overused, it still exists as a concept distinct from price gouging (which is a short-term response to an emergency). It's closer to profiteering. Jerdle (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed, MasterOfGrey(MoG), 美しい歌|美しい歌, and Jerdle. A distinct concept in itself, with adequate sourcing. Sal2100 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to price gouging. It's not actually a type of inflation, what this is describing is a buzzword for the act of price gouging that has already been a thing for ages beforehand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Price gouging since no evidence has been provided to prove that this is a "distinct concept". Some other comments claim as such, but have provided no sources that prove this is a "distinct" concept at all.64.60.120.211 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There is broad consensus among economists that the role of profits in fueling inflation is one feature of the recent inflationary episode that made it different from the 1970s. Yet how much of a role profits played is the subject of controversy." - per WSJ Dec. 2023 Some use the term interchangeably but not clear that they are synonyms Superb Owl (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole article as of today is nonsense and false equivalence, mostly from poor sources and SYNTH. TNT may be better than trying to merge some shreds of good content. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I personally don't agree with the theory that price gouging is the primary cause of the increased inflation that we've seen in the early 2020s, this theory has widely circulated, and even been asserted by many leading politicans, so the theory is certainy notable, and I would argue also distinct from "price-gouging," which often referrs to a shorter term and/or more localized phenonomenon. So I'd argue against the merge proposal as well, and support having an article specifically about the theory that corporate greed as is the main cause of inflation this decade, and discuss arguments for and against the theory. -2003:CA:8718:B9C5:6E53:FF0C:E0C7:B632 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not describe anything that could reasonably be considered a "theory". SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bedri Shala

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

Biography of a local commander of doubtful notability based on a single source. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: S as a broadly supported ATD here. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scimitar (comics)

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

Next to no reliable sources discuss this character. Per my BEFORE, I found no hits in Books or Scholar and very little in News hits, and those hits had very few sources from reliable sources that actively discussed this character, and not enough to actively prove notability. There is not enough SIGCOV for this character to pass the GNG and have enough for an article. I'd suggest an AtD redirect/merge to his entry at List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor character that has essentially no significant coverage in reliable sources. Not only is the character completely non-notable by Wikipedia standards, he is not even a particularly notable character within the comics themselves, never making more than a relatively small handful of appearances. Searches are bringing up nothing but the most briefest of mentions of the character - it really says something when even the official Marvel site dismisses him as one of many "lesser villains". Not every character that ever appeared in the comics needs to be covered on the overstuffed Character List articles, and this is an example of one that does not have enough notability to even be included on them. Rorshacma (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Doesn't have enough sources. I'm open to an WP:ATD, but I also agree that we don't want to bloat every character list with a WP:DIRECTORY of every minor character that has ever appeared in comics. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S per nominator's suggestion. BOZ (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: S to preserve the information. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with his section at List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE like @BOZ: and @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: have pitched.

Comment - If you are going to seriously propose Keeping this article, you are going to need to show evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing about WP:PRESERVE allows it to be a catch-all argument to circumvent a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the only one wanting it's information preserved as it's preservation was also called on by @DaniloDaysOfOurLives:. As for sources, they would be tough to find unless your source hunters like @Toughpigs:, @Jhenderson777:, or @Higher Further Faster:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one else has proposed to "Keep" this article so far. Stating "Keep" without actually addressing any of the issues is WP:JUSTAVOTE. Rorshacma (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters or List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Probably not notable in itself, but target can be improved by content based on a secondary sources present here. Does additionally appear in The Encyclopedia of Super Villains, but I cannot see how much content there is. Daranios (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Alam

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

No significant coverage from multiple reliable source about this subject. The award the article claimed she won, the source ain’t reliable to be verified. But still doesn’t meet GNG. Gabriel (……?) 18:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Gabriel (……?) 18:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still too early to have an article, not relevant at the moment. Alon9393 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Not that significant. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I draftified it but it was reverted. Fails WP:N — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough IRS covering the subject in depth to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 23:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SKCRIT#6: currently on the Main Page. Also noting that I cleaned up this nomination as it was originally malformed. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt toast theory

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

Like it was mentioned on the talk page for the article, burnt toast theory is just the butterfly effect mixed with positive thinking. It's also not very notable, since it's really just comes from a single TikTok that went semi-viral. It might have a place as a subsection on the butterfly effect page, but I don't think it deserves a page by itself. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am posting this in the correct place, sorry if not. This "theory" or whatever you want to call it is logically bogus. Yes, burning your toast could prevent you from being in a serious car accident on the way to work by delaying you. BUT, it is JUST AS LIKELY that the burnt toast delays you INTO a serious car accident and away from an otherwise safe trip to work. So there is NO advantage to burning your toast. Assuming of course that the probability of having a serious car accident is independent of your departure time. And this would be true if the delay was just a few minutes, because rush hour traffic is equally dangerous throughout rush hour. And if the "theory" comes from a single tiktok posting, that is also pretty indicative. There is a lot of garbage on the net, and tiktok in particular. One person's single post on tiktok is an extremely poor indicator of good logic or intelligence, especially given the above argument.

I vote DELETION!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. It doesn't seem very notable. It hasn't been covered in many major national publications either. I think the best course would be to put a mention of it in the butterfly effect page. Keeper of the Queen's Corgis (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Oluikpe

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

There is nothing notable about this man. Most of the source from the newspaper cited has nothing to do with him except ref 1. Naijaloaded and 9jaflaver has nothing to do with significant neither reliable as they were only just talking about his music and the rest source are just mere websites. And to the article creator “How did you come inform of the biography” knowing all this information without any source giving a clue of who the subject is? Gabriel (……?) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Arts, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : One more question to the article creator. Who is “Muradmomi12”, a user who posted a fake template on your talk page Here claiming to have accepted the article. Is that your second account?. Remember lying won’t save you. So you can just be honest and things be sort out properly per Wikipedia policy--Gabriel (……?) 18:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to state categorically that I have no affiliation with the subject whatsoever. Can you check my edit history and particularly, the articles I have written and contributed to here? They cut across different interests. I am mostly interested in seeing major subjects/articles from Africa feature on Wikipedia. I am not ashamed to have that interest, but apart from that, I have no conflicts of interest in writing about the subjects I choose. I am neither paid nor employed by any of the subjects I have written or contributed to.

About @Muradmomi12 , you need to check his edit and contribution history to know he has been warned severally about vandalism. I had no need for his approval or acceptance of my article. I am an Autoconfirmed user and have the user rights to move articles directly to mainspace. So I have no need for his/her help. If you check his history, you would notice he has been banned or blocked from wikipedia. If you compare my edit history and @Maradmomi12, our interests do not align. i would urge you rather to also check his history with yours and see if there are similarities.

On a final note, i sense that your nomination of this article for deletion was not in good faith. It appears this is vandalism and I hereby warn you to desist. Thank You. Cfaso2000 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion on my article. The notability of the subject is proven by many mainstream independent articles as follows:

(1) A review in major Nigerian newspapers, of his books. Four major/independent sources reviewed his book, Swim or Sink: Policy dynamics in challenging environments. His biography was also cited by these newspapers (references 1, 4, 5, and 20).

(2) His Novel, Dead on Arrival(2013) was also featured in 2013 by Linda Ikeji(ref 17)and Bella Naija (ref 18) and also referenced in ref 1, 4, 5 and 20.

(3) He was recognized by the British Council in 2017 (ref 12, 13)

(4) He won a major award here (ref 14)

(5) He also won another major award here from Alliance for Financial Inclusion here (ref 11)

(6) He is also a musician and has an extensive discography (ref 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). i have only included these for brevity sake. I found so many other songs he has put out.

(7) His financial inclusion work is also covered in major independent newspapers here (ref 7,8,9,10).

I hope this helps you to situate and agree with his notability.

Finally, please can you check the history of edits to give you an idea of where this article has evolved from?

Thank you. Cfaso2000 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a final note, i sense that your nomination of this article for deletion was not in good faith. It appears this is vandalism and I hereby warn you to desist. Thank You. This clearly now shows you definitely don't know what Wikipedia policy is all about neither the good faith or vandalism. You joined wikipedia 9 months ago with less than 200 edits but thats by the way. You stated “Muradmomi12” is into a different interest of editing from yours and has been vandalising but I am still surprise how he found your talk page and to post a fake approve article template of your article, since you both are of different interest, but thats by the way since you already stated you don't know such editor. When I saw that it actually looked like a deceive to the public that one of your article was accepted. So I thought it might be from your handwork to deceive the community but it's fine. Meanwhile, that doesn't still change the fact why I nominated this article. It still doesn't meet the general notability guideline. His works are not notable and this is the only thing I can found about his subject novel which still has nothing to do with him Dead on arrival. Gabriel (……?) 21:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to do a check of my refutations to your nomination for deletion in points 1-7 above and go through piece by piece and make your conclusions. I address your points in this latest response as follows:

(a) The fact that I joined Wikipedia 9 months ago and have only 200 edits is not relevant to the issue here;

(b) I have no business with how @muradmomi12 found my talk page to post a fake "approve" article template. Wikipedia is a public place and anyone is entitled to roam the space and indulge in their interests, but that "indulgence" should be ethical, free of conflicts of interest, and not infringing on the rights or freedoms of other users to contribute to the stock of knowledge here.

(c) Why does it look like a deception to the public that my article was accepted? because I am just only 9 months with less than 200 edits or what? Please check my edit history and other articles and subjects I have written about. Paul Oluikpe is not the first or only article or subject I have written about.

(d) Your assertion "it still doesnt meet general notability guideline" has no proof, but merely an arbitrary/sweeping rationalization. Please can you be specific about the sources, and can you refute piece by piece no 1-7 points which i made above? Have you actually read the sources ? This can help.

Thank you Cfaso2000 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The fact that I joined Wikipedia 9 months ago and have only 200 edits is not relevant to the issue here; If you had stick with the Article wizard for creation policy, your article of 2023 Philip Ikeazor won't have been nominated for an AFD by Star Mississippi. Meanwhile, I still stand by my reason and will allow other editors do their research. Have a nice day and no further response from me to you. Gabriel (……?) 21:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving that your nomination of this article for deletion was in bad faith. I rest my case. Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 2 is his words at WSBI’s Scale2Save event, and likely, a press release. Source 3 is same as above and wouldn't tell us that he "works on financial inclusion". Tech finance, source 4, lacks byline and editorial standard, hence the post appears like a sponsored post. The awards are minor ad unrecognisable per WP:ANYBIO except the one from the British Council. But their count still doesn't make this article meet WP:GNG. Almost all the sources linked to Dead on Arrival, his book, are paid publication and some unreliable including Linda Ikeji's blog. Ofcourse, Nigerian world News doesn't perceive editorial policy and list works are by admin or individual. In light of WP: NMUSICIAN, the article's segment "musical work" were citations from unreliable sources per WP:NGRS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your view. Here are my responses to your post.

(1) The phrase "likely a press release" stays in the realm of speculation, and not a certainty. We shouldn't make conclusions on that. The issue is, does it cover the subject significantly? and is it an independent source?

(2)Sources 2, 3, 7,8,9,10 all state categorically that he works in financial inclusion and at the central bank. The sources are Thisday, Independent, Daily Trust, Business Day, TechCabal-all sources identified in the Wikipedia list of reliable sources from Nigeria (Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources

(4) Sources 6, 11,12, and 13 reference the awards he won. These are credible sources (Loughborough University, British Council, The Alliance for Financial Inclusion and The Punch).

(5)Sources 1,4,5 and 20 covered extensively his book Swim or Sink: Policy Dynamics in Challenging Environments. They also ran a biography on him and also mention where he works. These sources are Nigerian Guardian, The Tribune and This Day all listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources

(6) You said "Almost all the sources linked to Dead on Arrival, his book, are paid publication and some unreliable". This is inaccurate. Sources 1,4,5 and 20 mention the novel, Dead on Arrival plus Linda Ikeji's coverage and Bella Naija coverage and reviews.

I do believe the article should not be deleted.

Thank you Cfaso2000 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cfaso2000, do not Wikipedia:BLUDGEON the AFD process or you may attract yourself a block for a short period of time. Allow other editors to express their concerns and not you, pointing to sources and policies to every likely "delete" decision. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought at first that he would pass WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his book ([10], [11], [12]) in three sources rated generally reliable by WikiProject Nigeria, but in reading the sources, it seems two of them are based on one, or they are all based on an underlying WP:PRESSRELEASE. Look in particular at the final few paragraphs, which are in some cases nearly word-for-word identical. As a result, I do not believe these to be truly independent reviews and thus no pass of NAUTHOR. I also see no WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. As for the awards, they do not qualify under WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601@Dclemens1971 and @SafariScribe I have overhauled the article and also provided some additional independent reference. Can you kindly check again and your feedback would be most appreciated. I will continue to search for more sources and improve the article. Thank You. Cfaso2000 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References appear to be from non-quality sites. Despite the award, the subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO as the awards are not well known.Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has very wide coverage in independent media. 102.164.36.86 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t understand why you have been jumping from one AFD to another voting keep. Saw how you accuse @Vanderwaalforces and @Reading Beans over assessment of source in the AFD. Then I had to make a check on you and see that your IP has been mentioned here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut/Archive#Suspected sockpuppets 3 by @DoubleGrazing two months ago. I then just don’t know what to say to you. Gabriel (……?) 00:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuk campaigns in the Aegean

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

Turkish article has also been tagged uncited for a long time. I could not find any academic sources and the Turkish ones were unreliable such as https://eodev.com/gorev/19114676 However there are so many editors knowledgable about military history I am sure discussion here will be fruitful Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense, unsourced, made-up, anachronistic term/concept. It's a fork, too. Aintabli (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli Do you mean a fork of Battle of the Oinousses Islands (1090)?

What about a source I just found:

https://www.dzkk.tsk.tr/en-US/Genel/Content/turkish-naval-forces-command ?

It says “ Emir Çaka Bey was the first pioneer to introduce the maritime environment to the Turks. He was one of the most courageous raiders of the Seljuks, but was captured by the Byzantine Empire in 1078 when the Turks were marching towards the West. He constructed a shipbuilding facility, a kind of shipyard deemed very modern for that era. The region around this facility developed to become a naval base. Ship-constructing activities from then on commenced and the first Turkish Fleet of 50 sailing boats and rowboats was built in 1081. That year is extremely important in the history of the Turkish Navy, since it has been regarded as the foundation of the Turkish Naval Forces. In the same year, Emir Çaka Bey sailed into the warm waters of the Aegean Sea with the first Turkish Fleet.

In 1090, Çaka Bey’s fleet confronted the Byzantine Fleet off Koyun Islands coast in the Central Aegean Sea, where a battle was inevitable.

He commanded his fleet of 50 sailing boats by managing a series of tactical manoeuvres skillfully and the enemy fleet was struck repeatedly at its weakest points. Having suffered heavy losses, the Byzantine fleet was forced to withdraw. After this victory, Emir Çaka Bey broadened his control zone throughout seas and reached Çanakkale with his fleet. The sudden death of him in 1095 slowed down the development of the Turkish seamanship.” Chidgk1 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=tr&project=wikipedia&title=1.+Koyun+Adalar%C4%B1+Muharebesi&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0&use_engine=0 As I have a bad relationship with Turkish Wikipedia and also it is illegal to insult the military I have no further comments except to say that I was not aware of the info on the navy website when I proposed this article for deletion. Oh and thanks very much to the navy for keeping us safe - I have never seen a mine on the beach here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has always been essentially a fork of Tzachas, with some other unrelated later engagements included to invent a topic. Constantine ✍ 18:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.V. Hezarfen

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

Looks like a good organisation. But sources I found such as https://delta.tudelft.nl/en/article/first-delta-debate-tackles-religion-campus are not really enough to show it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Netherlands, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 17:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass NORG. gidonb (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Workers Movement of Turkey

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

Was deprodded last month by Soman who said there are plenty of sources - but they have not yet specified any. I found https://www.marxists.org/archive/altinoglu/2000/07/x01.htm but on its own that is not enough to show notability. There have probably been thousands of political parties in Turkish history. If this is notable why is there no Turkish article? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TDKİH was a notable group during its period of existence. For sourcing, see for example Türkiye'de sol örgütler: bölüne bölüne büyümek (Hüseyin Aykol, Phoenix yayınevı, 2010, covering its processs from formation until merger into MLKP), Sosyalist devrim teorisi (NK Yayınları, 2005, on the ideological line of TDKIH and its polemics with TDKP), Derin sol: çatışmalar, cinayetler, infazlar, Vol. 1] (Hakkı Öznur, Bilgeoğuz, 2006, on unity process with TKIH), 50 Jahre Migration aus der Türkei nach Österreich (Hüseyin Simsek, LIT Verlag Münster, 2017, on process from split with KHK to foundation of MLKP), Cumhuriyetin 75 yılı, Vol. 3] (Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, 1998, factoid on action at Istanbul Aksaray), briefly mentioned here, etc. Now, for an illegal underground faction that existed 1989-1994, two things need to be stressed - 1) for underground organizations that lived before WWW, the volume of online material isn't excessive. Presumably there was plenty of coverage on TDKIH actions in the contemporary Turkish press (like what is carried into the Cumhuriyet book), but it cannot be found easily online. It is possible that Albanian media covered the positions of the group as well. But there are stuff that we are unlikely to find anywhere, such as names of the leaders (as a secret, illegal group). 2) Most later accounts focus on TDKIH role as forerunner of MLKP, rather than a fully separate group. --Soman (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are (or were) a lot of these stub articles on different communist organisations world-wide. It would be an improvement if someone developed them, added sources, etc. The lack of information on these organisations online, is because of when the internet came into general use. It is not evidence of their lack of notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Soman. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Turkey by education

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

Tagged uncited for a long time and could be covered in other articles such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan university diploma controversy and List of presidents of Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Education, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iopolis

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

Tagged unsourced for a long time and please see talk page. Perhaps a joke by a Battlestar Galactica fan? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 17:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found a source and corrected information on the page however I'm unsure if it's notable enough to deserve a wikipedia page Pothos144 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source referenced in the article amounts to a single sentence in an encyclopedic reference of a different topic altogether. cyberdog958^Talk 00:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no encyclopedic development nor any notoriety in the way of writing, sorry, it must be eliminated. Alon9393 (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 20:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IAOIZ

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

Tagged uncited for a long time. All the cites in the Turkish article are primary sources. It would be much easier for a native speaker of Turkish to find good cites than for me. If this industrial park is as claimed in the article it presumably contains hundreds of well educated Turks who could easily cite the article in either or both languages. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Turkey, Apocynaceae

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

Tagged uncited for years. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Should_these_uncited_articles_be_merged_or_deleted_or_cited_or_what? but no reply yet - any ideas? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- family and geography are already covered by the article for Apocynaceae, no need to pull out a nation-specific list. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of Turkey, Fagaceae

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

Tagged uncited for years. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Should_these_uncited_articles_be_merged_or_deleted_or_cited_or_what? but no reply yet - any ideas? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, frankly, and the same goes for the other two articles concerned. What with Flora of Turkey for the overview and Category:Flora of Turkey and its multifarious subdivions for details (including Category:Endemic flora of Turkey), this is quite superfluous - there is no benefit in an alphabetic listing that exactly mimics the category content. If retained, draftify as unacceptable for mainspace in current unsourced form. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 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. asilvering (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYO Boya

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

I could only find one really good cite: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/bir-boya-markasinin-dogus-oykusu-24664197 Chidgk1 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 17:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:A7 by User:Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ho (rapper)

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

Non-notable rapper. The main source appears to be a private discussion between the creator of the article and the subject. Because of this it can't be proven that the claims in the article are true. Claims made by the subject about themselves will require independent sources to confirm them.

Even if the claims are true the release of one song, a mash-up of Happy Birthday to You" and the US national anthem, on an unspecified medium, does not make them notable at this time. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soley because it is non-notable in english-speaking and caucasian circles does not suggest it is non-notable in Hong Kong and Asian circles. This is an act of cultural ignorance, there exists a lot of cantonese articles, physical media, and posters that reference Matthew Ho which are yet to be cited, though I do not expect a foreigner to be familiar with this individual. You should know Ho appears on Television Broadcasts (TVB) very frequently, and I hear about him everyday on Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK). Azn on wiki (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does being Caucasian have to do with it? Appearing on a poster isn't notable, nor is physical media. We need articles that talk about the individual, this doesn't appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ZERO coverage found, in any media. Unrelated businessman [13] thta hits on his name... Being "Unemployed" is not notable, I'm not sure why that's noted in the infobox. This is PROMO, pure and simple. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He was arrested in 2017, when he was 10? In San Francisco? and he plays the triangle? Is this supposed to be serious? Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged it for A7, this is silly. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Oaktree b. The WP:PERP is obviously a different person with the same name. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. If there are WP:Reliable sources in Cantonese media, then cite them, otherwise this looks like either a poor attempt at promotion or a hoax. Edit history of article creator suggests the latter. The entirely non-Caucasian Wikishovel (talk) 17:00, 8 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. Discarding the canvassed votes, and the accounts created to vote here, we're left with a P&G-based rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harrell

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

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

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

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

Satisfies WP:BIO1E, every single reliable source are documenting about his death; and the event isn't significant enough to have an entry for him. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Firearms, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've heard of his death, but all sourcing is about his death. There isn't any coverage, nor can I find any, from before this time. Doesn't appear to be a notable youtuber, before passing on, which does not make you notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://people.com/youtuber-paul-harrell-announces-own-death-pancreatic-cancer-58-prerecorded-video-8707421

There have been several articles on his channel and death by many reputable news sources, including Fox News, NBC and Today. 75.18.220.17 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator and Oaktree b. Xegma(talk) 18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge or Redirect. Relative newbie here. Found his name in a meme & associated discussion. Didn't recognize it, so searched here. I suspect that others are in similar situations. Also, MSN in https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/what-happened-to-paul... says "He currently has close to a million [YouTube] subscribers." How many makes a person notable? KVWS — Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it up, don’t delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.122.2 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP.Article on Mr. Harrell should be retained. He had and continues to have a major impact on a large community of people world-wide. His YouTube channel has over 1,000,000 subscribers that would, no doubt, search for more information about Mr. Harrell here on Wikipedia and, presumably, donate towards Wikipedia's ongoing concern. In an age of misinformation, disinformation and no information, Wikipedia often serves as the single source of information on any given subject or figure. Wikipedia needs to keep this article up and, people who know more about Mr. Harrell, especially his two self-defense incidents, should be encouraged to enlarge the pieces content. TrailPrime (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage is on his death, a non-significant event per WP:NEVENT. Mori Calliope fan talk 02:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It does not matter that some random wikiperson never heard about him, he had 1.3million subscribers and 10million views on the "i'm dead" video. I am among the people who searched for his name because this video was in my recommended feed. Just to help those people, this page NEEDS to be KEPT!!! And if somebody claims that he was not notable, he got the same number of subs as Tim Pool and 1.3 million is not a number that is easy to reach. So again: Unless people want to purge large swathes of wikipedia, this needs to stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D9:F16:2C00:9037:48EC:D688:96A9 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and is the definition of WP:BIO1E. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no reason to delete his article and Id hardly call him not notable considering he got 1.35M subscribers by making content about firearms related education and entertainment on youtube. He might not have appeared on traditional news outlets before his death but using this as an excuse to delete his article doesnt make any sense considering the youtuber technoblade also passed away due to cancer and only appeared on major news outlets after his death. WhyIsEveryNameTakenIJustWannaBeNamedJoey (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and maybe WP:BASIC. The coverage in the handful of sources isn't very substantial, a couple of news articles after one's death is not really "significant coverage", and basically the entire article is just about his death. Also, to address some other points here, there are more than 30,000 YouTube channels with over a million subscribers. They can't all be notable- one million subscribers is not what it once was in terms of channel size. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paul Harrell was noteworthy in the sense that his style of teaching and communication was highly effective and far reaching. His depth of knowledge in two separate self-defense shootings as well as his experience in the Army & Marines provides ample accreditation. I would suggest expanding this article to include his background in the armed forces as well as the court documentation surrounding his successful use of self defense laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.41.238 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being knowledgeable and a good teacher is not itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article, nor is having served in the military. I’ve known many excellent teachers, almost none with wikipedia articles. Having successfully defended a self-defence claim is also not by itself notable as there are millions of examples across history and the globe of people who have successfully done so. Archimedes157 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything, just remove unverifiable information and move on. Most of the sources contain information not just on his death but what he was notable for. As far as I see it, it meets WP:GNG and if deleted may cause questions to arise about similar articles. It also has a good content-to-source ratio, small articles like these exist elsewhere on the English Wikipedia and could be challenged if this is successfully deleted. Some examples include the area code he was in, and multiple other biographies with a similar amount of sources. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Paul Harrell page has only been up a few days and most of the public have not had a chance to see it and add to it yet. Paul Harrell was a private person, and due to the self-defense shootings he was involved with, may have had restrictions on what he could discuss publicly. Now that he has died, those who knew him and have sources may want to add to this page. Deleting it now will prevent that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.166.189 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion is not about the current state of the articles, but the potential for it to actually improve with the sources that exist out there. Is it possible that you can find currently existing sources about him that aren't just his death? TheWikiToby (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B049:7E44:3986:692D:D0CB:BCE8 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way Harrell announced his death via a precoreded YouTube video was not the reason for the major coverage. He was a popular creator in his subject area and got widespread coverage for that reason. Thriley (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Ljubljana

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

Previous attempt at redirect was opposed and previous PROD tag removed. No secondary sources. Promotional. Fails WP:GNG. Anything useful can be covered at India–Slovenia relations. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Slovenia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely based on primary sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source are only one primary embassy websites referenced couple of time. No secondary independent reliable sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG and it is a clear that the page is for WP:PROMO. Nothing notable here. RangersRus (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black and White (rap group)

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

Article may not be notable. Made searches and only found unreliable sources. The ruwiki article has many sources, but most of them are also from unreliable outlets. Roughly any reliable source to establish notability. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Attempt two) @ToadetteEdit: I thank you for starting this. If I may ask for clarification, how do we determine which articles and sources are legitimate? I'm am TOTALLY not opposed to this being deleted if you think it's the right decision but I just need some clarification to avoid this in the future. I thank you very much. I love editing Wikipedia, so any help you can give me is really great. JohnDVandevert (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Abdul-Aziz

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

Nothing notable in his early career. He is still a young player and has not appeared in any official matches. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Smail

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

Articles for the New York Times makes no mention of the subject, most of the other sources are merely passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed New York Times article, added further sources to add to proof of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV (The Times, BBC Radio 4) AscanioB (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

further mentions from Tatler and The Standard have been included. AscanioB (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found enough info about him for a biographical article. He is named in articles about his works, and in some of those the main emphasis is on his wife's story. We need at least two sources that are about him, not simply naming him. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
added his 2013 interview with Gramophone and parts of his biography from Universal Edition AscanioB (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Gramophone is interview (primary) and the Universal Edition text is taken from his own website [14]; Tatler is a brief summary and photos, and the Standard is similarly a short mention. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:13, 8 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 13:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Wilkins College

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. toweli (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only the lack of WP:SIGCOV and the fact that there is not a single source cited in the article, I found little to prove widespread, independent secondary coverage. GuardianH (talk) 19:16, 8 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 13:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Sticca

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

I have nominated this article for deletion as it is clearly an article written to promote the subject, his business. It has been edited by the subject and people close to him as an advertisement which is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia. JimmethMM (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete need more significant coverages and also looks like an autobiography. Xegma(talk) 13:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, Italy, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the coverage is that significant coverage of this individual. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. Sandstein 14:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1976–77

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

Fails WP:NLIST. There are about 40(!) more of these lists, one for each season, but I refuse to bundle them all herein. (One Verdict should rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.) List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches and Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (listed alphabetically) are quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two "sufficient" pages you mention are mostly links to the pages you want to delete. 173.66.241.40 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? What's your point? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. There is simply no need for so many pages. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think these could be in a single large list or grouped by decade rather than as dozens of season-based pages. The concept is fine since there are a lot of notable sketches (and sketches/characters with enough coverage to warrant mention in a list but not a standalone article), but the ones that have only appeared twice or otherwise lack context should be trimmed. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is probably the best course, starting with this one. There are so many of these that we do need to have an intelligent discussion about how to (re-)organize them. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Usman Malik

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Otherwise fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammadusmann 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be speedied, I will do so, if no-one objects. PhilKnight (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilKnight I woudl not have started this AfD had I seen the SPI previously. I suggest CSD and speedy close 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have speedied the article. I will close this AfD as soon as I figure out the templates. PhilKnight (talk) 11:32, 8 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 11:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Doctor comic stories

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

The non-table part of the article is unsourced, and the data in the table exists in List of non-televised Seventh Doctor stories (though that needs sourcing too), so I think this article should be deleted (P.S. I more or less copied the data from this article to that article, and it seems that might have been against guidelines, edit-so I have reverted it already) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:01, 8 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 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Budnik

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

WP:BLP1E that lacks WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Russia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Alon9393 (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Nepomuk von Lobkovicz

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

The seemingly extensive page describes only his family tree and property, but does not mention anything that makes him notable for a separate encyclopedia article. The mere fact that he was from a noble family does not make him notable. FromCzech (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: It’s unclear if he had an actual career, or any secular political power. If either of these questions are answered yes, then he’s notable. If both are answered in the negative, then he fails WP:POL. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - He was the imperial-royal chamberlain [cs], a court office that qualifies under WP:NPOL as a senior court official and the chief secretary of the royal household. Moreover, he also meets WP:ANYBIO criteria as he has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary, the Austrian Biographical Encyclopedia (Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950). I've expanded the article. Thank you. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cswiki says that it was a service function in the imperial rooms, and from the 1620s it was an honorary office. This cannot be called a political function. The second argument looks better, but I prefer to let others judge. FromCzech (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FromCzech, Yes I agree, not like Korean inner court system; it may be an honorary office, but it can be notable. Thank you so much for agreeing with me on the second argument. Cheer 223.204.71.128 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Southeast Asia's absolute monarchy systems, the head of the royal household was historically a minister of the interior. In Thailand and Myanmar, the head of the royal chamber is referred to as the "Hmanan Atwin-wun" (minister of the royal chamber) in Myanmar and the "Chief of the Royal Household Bureau" (หัวหน้าองค์การพระราชพิธี) in Thailand. These positions have the right to attend the royal parliament (Hluttaw). This is why I believe the role of imperial chamberlain in Western contexts may be similar to that of a minister, and positions held by ministers are often automatically considered notable on Wikipedia under WP:NPOL. Thanks. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, meets WP:ANYBIO with an entry in a national dictionary of biography. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that no notability are found for this person and that being in a noble family does not make him notable. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin: This account is newly created and appears to be used solely for the purpose of deleting articles via AfD as a weapon. Regardless of whether the subject is clearly notable, the editor ignored all comments and points from other editors and consistently voted for 'auto delete' (see his vote history). This behavior harms Wikipedia's pillars and notable topics. What is the community value for these AfDs? Thanks. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
223.204.71.128, if you are talking about Priscilladfb16, they have been commenting in a lot of AFDs recently but they have been editing since June. You will need to provide evidence/diffs of something nefarious going on and not just casting aspersions. Also, in the English-speaking world, Priscilla is a women's name so the "his" should probably be a "her". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Due to gift after noble action got immensely rich (see other language wiki for the story which is related)[[15]] (German ref). Plus WP:ANYBIO. --Axisstroke (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of available source material would be helpful for determining actual notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade The above discussion is very clear, with one delete vote and three strong keep votes from experienced editors. Does it really need to be relisted? What are your concerns? 223.206.45.210 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ANYBIO with an entry in the Austrian Dictionary of National Biography. Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 8 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 10:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bùi Đình Dĩnh

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

Have been unable to locate significant coverage in secondary sources, despite looking through several articles in Vietnamese. Appears to fail WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Vietnam, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 13:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. I found a source like this but it's a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to IBT Media. Star Mississippi 13:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Uzac

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage of court visits. No other coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 1 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!} 08:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IBT Media, since he's the founder and mentioned there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Eid

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

~~Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some articles about him. One at Billboard, 01/9/2024 - From The Rolling Stones to ‘RIVO’: Amir Eid on the Intersection Between Acting and Music - By Mayya Al Ogail, and then there's Cairo Scene, Jul 18, 2024 - Cairokee Lead Singer Amir Eid Releases First Chapter of Solo EP ‘Roxi’ and Ahram Online , Saturday 3 Aug 2024 - Cairokee Amir Eid debut solo EP Roxi featured in Times Square billboard to mention a few. I'm satisfied it meets the requirements. in saying that, the page needs a whole lot of work. I can see why it attracted a deletion nomination. It seems it was hastily put together. If people put work into it, it will turn out to be a worthwhile article. Karl Twist (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you cited, from Billboard, appears to be an interview. The second is from n unreliable source, Cairo Scene, and it's a music release announcement, which we often count as PR. Source 3 is good. All I can see in the article is about the band, and if possible, should be merged and redirected to the band's article Cairokee. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few articles in the "Amir Eid" -wikipedia - Google News Search , or the "Amir Eid" - Google News Search. I'm satisfied that there's more than enough on him. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I withdraw my nomination . Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Spitale

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

Fails WP:BLP1E for only being known for winning a poker contest, which is the only content in this article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person, lacking WP:SIGCOV outside specialist poker websites. Also tagging other articles/unlikely redirects created by the same user, for the same reason. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should now be less confusing and also with more logical highlight on the fact that the tournament in itself should render notability as it's the second largest tourny at the World Series of Poker. Maybe it could be recreated with the tournament as the main article with the winner (Spitale) being just a subsection. PsychoticIncall (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the latter, especially considering WP:BLP1E, so probably merging. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 15:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, if this article is Merged, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think a side-tournament at a WSOP is notable enough for its own article, either. Maybe a sub-section of the WSOP article could cover that, with Spitale getting a mention. I strongly suggest PsychoticIncall read our WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, especially WP:NPEOPLE and WP:NEVENT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The widespread, secondary independent coverage required by policy isn't there, as evidenced by the lack of WP:SIGCOV. GuardianH (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Alon9393 (talk) 20:54, 9 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 11:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinduria (caste)

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

This article is copied from Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha and it has been mixed with two castes i.e. Bania and Kayastha. Both are different castes. Kayastha are considered higher and forward and they are unrelated to Bania. Moreover, the article is an orphan as well as completely uncited! TheProEditor11 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheProEditor11 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 13:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom (except that I cannot see that it is a direct copy from Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha). LizardJr8 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Only One source on the page but fails verification. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jean-Claude La Marre. ✗plicit 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped: Haitian Nights

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

I PROD'd this article but it was de-PROD'd with a note to bring it to AFD so that's what I'm doing. When I did a search for sources, I just found IMDb and streaming services, along with the Wikipedia article. It looks like a direct-to-video production so I'm doubtful that there are any reviews or articles on reception of the film. There is not even a plot summary here. But I'm sure if reviews are out there, someone will bring them to this discussion. It just looks like a B-level (or Z-level) movie. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in a recent edition of The Black Guy Dies First: Black Horror Cinema from Fodder to Oscar p. 160-161; a redirect to the director should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few things for verification and a link to the book. I'd rather keep this, although coverage is sparse, one source is very significant; and notable cast and director contribute to the notability of the film, which was not, apparently, a straight-to-video release. It's probably what can be called a B or a Z movie but I don't think that pages about such films are necessarily a bad idea. A redirect to its director is absolutely warranted in my view so that I am strongly opposed to the deletion of the page. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, no claim to notability Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources????? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the director, Jean-Claude La Marre. The TV Guide source is a database listing that doesn't go in depth, Historical dictionary of African American cinema only has passing mentions in entries for the crew, the Parle article makes a passing mention when talking about Kenya Moore opening a hair salon, and Culture Crypt appears to be a self-published review. I don't think we're close to meeting WP:GNG here. hinnk (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe, but there's another review (see EL; may be considered a SPS expert) and above all, significant coverage in The Black Guy Dies First (covering production, plot, themes and containing a brief critical assessment). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think Film Critics United would meet WP:RS, this feels like a red flag. I can't view the full section from The Black Guy Dies First on Google Books, but assuming it's reasonably substantial, that'd make a single source counting toward WP:GNG. hinnk (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the director. There's really not a lot out there. I'd view Culture Crypt as a reliable enough source, but it's not really about the movie. The rest just doesn't seem to be enough to justify it having its own article - I did find an article talking about one of the producers, but it isn't heavy enough to really justify keeping on that basis alone. If we had a RS review for the film itself then that could do it, but there's just not enough. As it is, I think this could be summed up in a paragraph or few lines in the director's article: mainly that it was heavily funded by a politician, that it got some criticism for its depiction of voodoo, and that it starred Vivica A. Fox. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
....and that it was remade with a heavy focus on the character played by Kenya Moore and that it implied using original scenes with various changes regarding credits and plot and that commentators found both films bad...all of which would be better in a standalone article.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (Mango album)

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

Seems to be original research, doesn't appear to meet GNG, couldn't find sources to bring it up to notability, from my searching. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverages need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:52, 8 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!} 01:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott (video game developer)

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

The sources provided are WP:PASSINGMENTION quick google search reveals no info about him entirely which make this article fails WP:NBIO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he is not like giving interviews. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:17, 8 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. From arguments and the source analysis, it appears that references don't provide SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Theme

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Sources are announcements of the album or unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the sources are reliable, the pieces are unreliable. I can't rely on a news piece that lacks a byline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only source without byline in the article is the New Music Weekly and that's how the website is. I've added more refs by the way. 102.88.68.119 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Refs added. Like Vanderwaal said, the sources are reliable. Also, the album has received multiple reviews from reliable publications per WP:NALBUM. 102.88.68.119 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added make it pass WP:NALBUM Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This needs a closer look hence my assessment.

A 146 words articles from ThisDay does not constitute as in-depth coverage for me. Even though it has a byline, I have concerns that it is a paid job.

I have no opinion on whether London Daily News has on online presence after being defunct but the byline in this article clearly states that it was written by a “LDN Guest Post” aka contributor and is likely to have been written and submitted by the subject of the article.

This 193 words articles from Sheen Magazine credited the photo to Johnel. This is very, very likely to be a paid post.

This article on Teen Ink is clearly written by a contributor named Jon who’s profile there would remove any doubt of that being Johnel hence this fails WP:INDEPENDENT.

This articles reads like a press release to me and so fails INDEPENDENT. Further search shows that you can indeed submit a post to NMW for some few bucks (see here).

This compilation from Encomium reads just fine to me but cannot on itself establish notability as it is a marginally reliable source (according to WP:NGRS). Best, Reading Beans 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the artist is a Journalist too? Maybe you should include that in the main article and back it up with a reliable source if you think so.

Understandably, it's your opinion, but to assume and conclude that some of the sources are written by a notable artist himself and also disregard the sources that are obviously independent even when there is no indication in any of the sources that any payment was made nor it's an advertisement is just sad. This was submitted as a draft and accepted once with just one attempt because it's obviously notable. But it looks like until a 10,000-word written article from The New York Times or BBC is provided, then you might reconsider. 105.112.209.5 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can sign up here if you wish to contribute to Teen Ink. This shows how posts are ranked in Teen Ink. Liz, I am not implying that he is a journalist, I am saying that he is writing and submitting to these outlets! I don’t think that this needs rocket science to achieve. To the IP, a 10,000-word written article from The New York Times or BBC would make me to reconsider. Best, Reading Beans 09:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like more consideration of the sources here since opinion is divided. I don't think a similarity in names is any evidence that an 18 year old musician has somehow become a journalist. Let's assess their value and not assume this is autobiographical writing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am concerned about deletionism from the editors familiar with the Nigerian space. Different standards are obviously applied to independent sources. A lot of suppositions about articles being paid for, yet without evidence. There’s just too much arbitrariness or unilateralism applied. Unfortunately, articles about likely-notable subjects are constantly suppressed. I saw editors haggling over Deborah Paul Enenche as if she was obscure in Nigeria. We probably need to check why these editors with Nigerian background continue to suppress articles. Are they protecting a lucrative trade whilst at the same time alleging that subjects constantly pay media? I checked on Upwork and loads of Nigerians offering services for Wikipedia articles. 102.164.36.86 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about undisclosed paid editing, mail paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. I would also like you to note as in the case of Eneche and this subject here, popularity does not constitute notability (please, read WP:BIO and WP:GNG to fully understand how this works). Best, Reading Beans 01:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This artist is not notable, because it’s all Pr and paid up in which people can now adays submit their post to be published as guest post that’s what he being doing based on what I have observed check his Spotify [16] and YouTube [17] really considering that a notable artist will be having 90 streams a month and only 30 YouTube subscribers, I guess he hasn’t reached the Notability guidelines as a musical artist to be on Wikipedia.Madeforyou33 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)— Madeforyou33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: IMO, These are quite enough sources this, added after afd, supposedly a reliable newspaper and this per WP:THREE. Esthersp (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esthersp, not trying to badger you but the Encomium magazine article is just passing mention (among other 99 other complications) and can be used to verify an information but not to establish notability. The source from a “supposedly reliable newspaper” is a 146-word article, the last one from London Daily is written by a contributor (please, see WP:CONTRIBUTOR). Now, with this analysis, you would find it out that the first two does not count as significant coverage (please, WP:SIGCOV). For a subject to be considered notable, IMO, it needs sources that are independent of the subject, reliable and has in-depth significant coverage. (Keep in mind that WP:THREE is an essay not a policy). Best, Reading Beans 01:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for that Esthersp (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnel.--Gabriel (……?) 23:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I figured I’d help the community out here. Previous attempt was misunderstood by Liz.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans
https://web.archive.org/web/20240717083831/https://www.londondaily.news/vanguards-of-the-new-wave-five-african-teen-artists-to-know/	? The author is labelled LDN Guest	The source is a noted book by a well-known author	{{ And now, with his latest release, ‘Galactic Theme,’ he’s embarked on a voyage that transcends musical borders, a journey that not only showcases his versatility and creativity, but also his ability to connect with listeners across the globe.}} This is the only mention of the album there.	✘ No
https://genius.com/albums/Johnel-ng/Galactic-theme		Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable. Please, see WP:GENIUS		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240427065757/https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/04/27/johnel-soars-into-space-with-new-galactic-theme-album		per WP:NGRS	A 146-word article is not considered as significant coverage.	✘ No
https://www.sheenmagazine.com/johnel-is-touring-the-universe-with-new-galactic-theme-ep/	?	? Even though this page exist there’s no byline in these articles	Ditto. This time 193-words.	✘ No
https://newmusicweekly.com/johnel-ng-announce-new-long-play-galactic-theme-inspired-by-a-futuristic-life-outlook/	{{…the singer said in a press release.}}—curated from the article but said press release was not linked. WP:PRSOURCE	? I don’t consider this reliable per this link	? not really	✘ No
https://encomium.ng/?p=400108-the-100-best-african-compilations-of-2024-so-far		~ marginally reliable source per WP:NGRS		✘ No
https://www.teenink.com/opinion/movies_music_tv/article/1219379/Johnel-Travels-Universes-On-Galactic-Theme-Long-Play	? This is a user-generated post.	We don’t consider user-generated posts reliable. See WP:USERG.	per same reasons above—143-words.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Yes, it's in the news but it's far too soon to know whether there's lasting notability. Suggest revisiting down the line to see if there's lasting coverage. Star Mississippi 13:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 75 Kentucky shooting

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

No notability. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah have you tagged the wrong article? I'm currently watching a live stream about this with 55K viewers and tons of news article now and to come. Regardless, let's wait for the situation to end first before determining notability. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now a video from Fox on YouTube has over 200,000 views. I'm sure more info will be released dude just give it a few days Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it's a mass shooting since as we know 4 are injured, why would we delete a mass shooting without all the info. Jjbomb (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's literately a loose shooter situation how is this not notable 2601:902:8000:96C0:10EB:E971:D89B:8A13 (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incident still under investigation, and while deleting the article over no deaths or it being a "small incident" is somewhat reasonable, it's still on national news and currently under investigation on injuries, and the search of suspect; whether if he's alive or not. If the news start to die down, then probably yes delete. WikiinstA2001 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not even a day old, your deleting an article with information still coming out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloxzge 025 (talk • contribs)
Keep Why would you want to delete a article about a mass shooting that injured 4, 2 days after a highschool shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjbomb (talk • contribs)
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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Literally just happened of course nothing is known yet --Chicken4War (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above, national news coverage, also just happened.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The shooting happened very recently, more information will come out. Koiramainen (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this article was a bit premature. That said, this is currently making national news. ( A B C D E F) Will let others determine if it is notable enough or not. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: there is literally an entire WikiProject dedicated to current events. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 10:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that matters, especially when this was the state of the article when nominated. A single sentence article with three references and an infobox. ElijahPepe was correct to submit this for review. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he was at the time; but it is no longer a stub. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough that the article is no longer a stub. But I still don't get the point of your comments to me (or the others) in this discussion. I noted the article was premature in my viewpoint and that it was making national news a few days ago. I agree with ElijahPepe submitting this. But I said that I will let others determine its notability. Are you trying to encourage me to change my opinion? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely not trying to get you to change your opinion; I’m just trying to make you aware of the changes that have been made since @ElijahPepe submitted it to AfD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The shooting only happened today and the article will be expanded in the future. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Events are in a weird position where making them too early can be crystal balling, but nominating them for deletion too early is also crystal balling. However from my experience in this topic area this one seems relatively unusual in several regards, the type of things that garner long term coverage, so I would be willing to bet it is notable (wouldn't bet my life on it). In either case short of banning breaking news articles this will never be solved, and this article which may be notable is only a microcosm of the issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No fatalities, just another routine shooting in the USA. WWGB (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine shooting, I don't see lasting coverage arising from this. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Interstate 75 in Kentucky and Laurel County, Kentucky history section; redirect to the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 after merger; though it should be renamed 2024 Interstate 75 Kentucky shooting first, before merger and redirection. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only more notable than another shooting along an Interstate this week because of it happening so soon after a much higher-profile incident. Raskuly (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mass shootings are common in the US every day. Articles here are created only for the major ones. Gianluigi02 (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Made news, has sigcov. We should have an article on it. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything notable about this incident other than the fact it happened after a high-profile active shooting incident and it was described as an "active-shooter" situation? If this had happened before that I doubt it would've received nearly as much coverage. Should shooting incidents in the United States have articles made about them simply because they followed a much more high profile incident even if nothing about them in particular is notable on their own? Raskuly (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is a big manhunt and that it’s all over the national news. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has made international news and ongoing search for perpetrator. Autarch (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely extensive ongoing national coverage, including, e.g., in the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/shooting-kentucky-highway.html

Seems to be obviously a notable national story, surprised we are even having this discussion 2603:7081:1300:AB21:34A2:3CFB:3DAB:5482 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – it is a very notable especially for eastern Kentucky where this kind of stuff doesn’t happen. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings are always at least regionally notable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll add that it’s all over national outlets such as NewsNation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, every mass shooting is going to be notable. Does that mean that every single one needs an article, no! There have been several shootings in the counties round me, I've heard of every one, but they don't deserve articles. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen it here on Canadian news. Koiramainen (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same. CTV news has an article Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more evidence that it needs to be kept. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again @Sir MemeGod; we’re not talking about a major metropolitan area; we are talking about rural Eastern Kentucky where this kind of stuff is practically unheard of. Such an incident is far more likely to be nationally and even internationally notable when it happens in small towns that typically don’t see violent crime; compared to major cities (eg. New York, Chicago, etc.) And (as other editors have confirmed) this is not only getting widespread local coverage (WYMT has been breaking into programming numerous times); and widespread national coverage; but this has literally been circulated by newspapers and television stations worldwide as breaking news. It has been reported by outlets in Canada, the UK, and Ireland, and likely others. So yes, it is highly notable and I’m surprised we’re having this deletion discussion right now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: No casualities per above

QalasQalas (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has also been shootings with no fatalities with Wikipedia articles, so no fatalities is a bad reason Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By definition, all sources writing about this incident are primary sources, since they date from the time of the event. Wait until authors have started publishing secondary sources, which discuss the event by reviewing the primary sources from a time well into the future. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I MIGHT (maybe might) be okay with merging this into a history of I-75 or Laurel County article. But news organizations all over the world are publishing articles about this. That to me sounds like secondary sources to me. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I’m no expert but CTV News (a Canadian television network) isn’t going to have reporters hundreds of miles away in Kentucky, which by the way isn’t even in Canada); so CTV definitely isn’t a primary source. Your primary sources are going to be number 1 the Laurel County Sheriffs Department; and number 2; local news media (eg. WYMT; WKYT; etc.); and maybe national sources within the United States. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don’t believe what I’m saying: go to https://www.ctvnews.ca and go on that website’s search bar and just search “Kentucky” onto it and you’ll see several stories relating to the shooting. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/suspect-in-i-75-shootings-eludes-law-enforcement-for-a-second-night-in-rural-kentucky-1.7029547 Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus; with the manhunt still underway, it is still to a certain extent considered a current event. Which means that information can change rapidly over short periods of time. While I am NOT a member of WP:CURRENTEVENTS; I do know their policy of requesting deletion discussions, and PROD tags, and speedy tags to not be started for a few hours (after creation) until more information comes. I do understand however that we are beyond that timeframe technically. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add United Kingdom sources reporting on the event also: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/08/kentucky-police-say-multiple-people-shot-in-active-shooter-situation as well as RTE in Ireland: https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0908/1468951-us-shooting-kentucky/ Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That just adds more reason to speedily keep this article. It shouldn’t have even been nominated in the first place. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for all who want this to be kept: Since now we’ve got sources in Canada; the United Kingdom; and Ireland reporting on this. I’d say anyone who is strongly in favor of keeping should look for additional sources outside of the United States (eg. 7News and Nine News in Australia; BBC News and Sky News in the UK; CBC News in Canada; i24 News in Israel; etc. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a modern day Shot heard around the world. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: as soon as this deletion discussion is closed (presuming it’s kept); I want this nominated for ITN. Because it’s all over the news; as I said earlier, it’s essentially the Shot heard round the world (only 2024 style). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll further add that according to the sources listed in the reference section; now apparently Dutch media is reporting on this now. And the BBC is too. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 09:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was initially in favor of deletion, but due to how this has not been resolved due to the still ongoing manhunt, I believe I was being much too brisk in voting for deletion. It is uncommon for an active shooter to not be apprehended or found for so long, even though there is the possibility the perpetrator has been lying dead somewhere since day one. This multi-day manhunt and the subsequent international reporting on the issue has warranted an article. Raskuly (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not inherently notable every time someone uses a weapon. It's something that appeared in the news for a while, that's not notability. Revisit if it receives sustained coverage after the legal aspects have been resolved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Thebiguglyalien: you might as well change your !vote now. Because it will very likely receive sustained coverage at least nationally during the case; and probably locally after the case (because again something like this is a big deal for Eastern Kentucky). This is the kind of event you’ll probably hear about on Dateline and a bunch of other true crime shows.

What I think you all (talking to everyone on this) don’t understand is that this is a shooting that happened in a very rural part of Kentucky; a very rural part of the United States. This didn’t happen in Lexington; this didn’t happen in Louisville; this didn’t happen in Columbus; or Knoxville; or any other major city, where this kind of stuff is not unheard of. This happened in London, Kentucky which is part of the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields region. Even look at the article’s talk page. I have the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force listed as one of the supporters (and no, I’m not a member of said task force).

Let me ask every one of you this: has there ever been a mass shooting, where the shooter was randomly shooting at vehicles along a busy interstate, in Appalachia? Has there ever been a similar incident to this in Appalachia? If there has, I don’t know about it.

Mini rant over. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 09:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that come across poorly in any way; I do apologize. I’m just trying to make a point on why this is notable.

In my main Wikiproject; I learned that in general, events like this are often supposed to meet WP: LASTING. Now the folks that told me that were mainly referring to weather events; but I know that it does apply for a bunch of things.

This event will very likely meet WP: LASTING; just like the shooting of those police officers in Floyd County two years ago. The Allen, KY shooting resulted in at least proposed legislation (I don’t know whether or not it passed) to deter similar incidents. I would not be surprised if at there ends up being some kind of legislation proposed by at least the Kentucky General Assembly; if not by Congress itself. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 10:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But for everyone who is favoring deletion based on notability (or the presumed lack thereof; please read this.

It is too early to determine long term notability. You know what? Maybe a few years from now, it might end up turning out to be non-notable. And if that is the case; we open another deletion discussion.

But it is way too early to make that determination of it not being notable. Especially when sources all over the world are reporting on this. Let’s wait a week or two (at least) and then reassess notability. If there isn’t at least significant local coverage by then; then I might be in favor of merging the article into the history section of Laurel County and/or Interstate 75 in Kentucky. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 10:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I’ve said my piece. I’ve said all that needs to be said. I’m going to back away from this discussion now; because it is in my best interest. I don’t particularly want to end up getting in trouble. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 10:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work Bloxzge 025 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This event seems notable since it has made international headlines and the search for the perpetrator is ongoing. Galaxybeing (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to keep this up. I just saw yet another headline on this story on the front page of my (international) news home page and I went to wikipedia to find more info/background on it. It would be very strange to not find a page for it here. Especially with the weird oddities surrounding this story. Surfliner (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is still the top story on | NewsNation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While mass shootings are common in the U.S., this one stands out for several reasons: A shooter targeting random cars on a highway from the side of the road (very unusual), mass shootings are less frequent in Kentucky, it received national and international coverage, and the manhunt for the suspect is still ongoing. Johndavies837 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only reason this is in the news so much is because the perpetrator is at large, unless he somehow evades police for months it is not notable. Run of the mill news event with no reason to belief it will satisfy NEVENT and not just end up as a neglected event and article that is sourced to primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle, with all due respect; we don’t typically see manhunts with mass shooters (they typically kill themselves after perpetuating the shooting) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this “run of the mill”? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of mass shootings involve the perpetrator getting away, but I guess it doesn't make news headlines when it is a bunch of black people from the slums. We even have a category for this. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we typically don’t see mass shootings involving people shooting at random cars on the interstate; much less random cars on the interstate in a rural place like Eastern Kentucky. If you still think it should be deleted; I respect your opinion, but just know that my opinion is strongly in favor of keeping and you’re probably not going to be able to change it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also know that if this does get deleted; it’s very likely going to be appealed and you’re looking at the person who’ll probably be posting the appeal. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has been up for nomination for almost a week, 13 votes Keep, 7 Vote delete, can we finally put this to rest, it's clearly a unique situation, that has garnered worldwide coverage, an ongoing manhunt, and clearly support for the article to stay up. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of that; but my opinion has no bearing; especially since I !voted for speedy keep. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thief-River-Faller , first WP:NOTVOTE and WP:NHC and, secondly, unless it is a WP:SNOW or SPEEDYKEEP situation, and this AFD isn't, AFD deletion discussions run for at least 7 days if they are not relisted. If they are relisted, they can run much longer. Closing a deletion discussion isn't a matter of counting up "votes" but determine a rough consensus of participants based on Wikipedia's deletion policies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was trying to explain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if it were me closing (it’s not but using myself as an example); I don’t really see much of a consensus at all Liz; 13 14 including myself favor keeping and 7 favor deleting. With an extremely wide range of opinions; including some like me wanting a speedy keep; while others (like say Sir MemeGod) strongly favor deletion. I don’t think that’s a consensus. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with @Liz that WP:SNOW probably doesn’t apply. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t SNOW usually only apply when nearly every vote is keep/delete? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; since now it’s two thirds keep. Ignore my above statement about ne not thinking there’s consensus.

That said; I’m going to reiterate that my opinion holds little if any bearing; meaning we should let the closing admin determine whether or not there is consensus. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is still making national news headlines and the authorities are asking people in the area to suspend their activities while the manhunt continues. Pretty noteworthy in my opinion. Mario777Zelda (talk) 21:20, 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 speedy keep‎. This is now a proper DAB page. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 20:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial supervision

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

Contested BLAR. Should redirect to the appropriate entry in Glossary of French criminal law. All of the entries here come from terms in Wikipedia articles that aren't actually used in the sources/topics that they're describing. There are no title matches and I don't think the entries here meet WP:DABRELATED or MOS:DABENTRY.

The articles on parole, probation, and judicial review do not contain the phrase "judicial supervision".
The article Civil procedure in South Africa uses the term twice in the context of Jaftha v Schoeman and Standard Bank v Saunderson, neither of which use the phrase "judicial supervision".
The phrase "judicial supervision of executive acts" links to Philip P. Barbour, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the 1800s. The article uses the phrase in an uncited paragraph: "he authored dissents in Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838) and Holmes v. Jennison (1840). These two dissents sought to diminish federal authority by supporting Jacksonian political aspirations and opposing restrictions to state sovereignty. Kendall dealt with judicial supervision of executive acts" (emphasis added).
Supreme Court of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic does state that "judicial supervision" was a function of the Court, but this is a start class article and there's no indication that that translation is referring to a proper legal term of art. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Disambiguations, South Africa, France, Lithuania, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~but this is a case for a WP:BCA, not a disambiguation page, as these are not ambiguous concepts coincidentally sharing a name~~. BD2412 T 02:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: The term "judicial supervision" appears to be used in various ways across jurisdictions, so it's unclear to me what a BCA would look like at this point. Even if a BCA were appropriate, this page should still be deleted or redirected because this DAB is immensely confusing to readers, as all it does is link to various Wikipedia articles that currently use the words "judicial supervision" but might not in the future. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: I see what you mean. Yes, there is true ambiguity here. I had not even thought about the phrase being used to mean supervision of the judicial function rather than by it. BD2412 T 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: The only apparently valid use that we have anything written about on en-wiki is the French judicial supervision, which appears to me to be a form of parole. If someone wanted to write that article, I'd have no objection, but I think that would be more likely to happen if this were red linked from the French criminal law glossary page that I originally BLARed this to. Additionally, some scholars appear to use the phrase in the context of courts appointing monitors, special masters, etc., but I think that information probably belongs under a different article title. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My reason for creation of a disambig page is that when I linked judicial supervision (obviously a term that needs explanation), I saw a blue link, but when I followed it, I surprisingly landed into the French law, clearly irrelevant. Therefore the need in DAB page is crystal clear. At the moment there are at least three different meanings of the term. I am begging people to wire articles for them, because I am not an exprt. Unfortunately it seems that there is not so much lawyers among Wikipedians, I guess for obvious reasons :-) --Altenmann >talk 17:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I surprisingly landed into the French law, clearly irrelevant It's not irrelevant. It's the English translation of a French criminal law term, and that appears to be the only content we have on en-wiki about the term. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt hear what I said: yes it was completely irrelevant in the article I edited. --Altenmann >talk 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The nomination for deletion is without merit. See see my arguments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Judicial supervision. This person decided to escalate the issue without giving a chance to other people to weigh in. --Altenmann >talk 03:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's a terrible and hard-to-fix dab page, but having no dab page is even worse. I've added Judiciary in the see also section, which might help with explaining what kind of supervision this actually is (going for more of a dict-def). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's a terrible and hard-to-fix dab page It's not just a hard to fix DAB page; it's an invalid DAB page. We are doing a disservice to readers by linking them to the South Africa civil procedure article, which appears to have invented the phrase "judicial supervision" out of thin air (if you look at the context in that article, it cited two decisions of the SA Supreme Court; the phrase "judicial supervision" appears in neither decision). Same goes for Barbour, as I explained above. I agree that this should be an article, but an uncited dictionary definition and invalid/confusing DAB entries is worse than a red link in this case. I know @Altenmann created this in good faith because he wanted someone to write an article on this, but creating an invalid DAB based on searching the phrase "judicial supervision" on Wikipedia and linking to articles that use the term once or twice without checking whether their usages are cited in reliable sources or are even valid legal concepts is not the way to do it. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> - I see nobody jumps in to improve Wikipedia here, so according to the Russian joke спасение утопающих дело рук самих утопающих (saving of the drowning men is in the hands of the drowning men themselves), I started writing the missing articles. Don't complain on their poor state, because I aint no lawyer. --Altenmann >talk 17:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact a lawyer. Judicial supervision of executive acts is not a concept in US law. It is a made up term that is not cited to anything from the Barbour Wikipedia article. It's not even mentioned in the case being discussed in that passage. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to improve Wikipedia; I don't want to make up legal terms based on uncited OR in other Wikipedia articles, which is what that article would be. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, I think this is now a valid DAB, so I will withdraw my nomination later today. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Vanguard Party of Kurdistan

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

Does not seem to be notable. Tagged unsourced for over a decade and the Kurdish article has no sources either. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Middle East. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as usual, articles shouldn't be tagged for AfD based on the lack of references in the article at present, but based on the availability of potential sources for expansion. A quick google books search reveals plenty of material that could be used, based on both Kurdish and Turkish versions of the name, which could be used for sourcing and expansion before bringing the article to AfD process. --Soman (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, you might want to note wordings like "We will now briefly go through the expressions employed about the 'armed struggle' by the three prinicipal groups which had remarkably drawn more popular support among the Kurds of Turkey than the PKK in the late 1970s. The Vanguard Workers Party of Kurdistan (PPKK ..." (Turkey's Kurds: A Theoretical Analysis of the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan, my emphasis) --Soman (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It should not be in mainspace. Ben Azura (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Reliable sources exist. Dratifying an old article is a waste of time. Yue🌙 04:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 8 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 02:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Mountain (film)

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead films must show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in third-party reliable sources -- but this is referenced entirely to the filmmaker's own self-published content about it, and makes absolutely no notability claim (awards, etc.) above and beyond "film that exists". And even on a WP:BEFORE search, I mostly found more primary sources -- all I found for GNG-worthy reliable source coverage was two hits in the local media of the city where the director was living at the time, of the "local man tries to make film" and "local man screens film locally" varieties, which is not enough by itself in the absence of any wider attention. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Nepal, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tibetan-language films: a list that needs expansion and update (it stops in 2007 and the entry should be added); other sources exist to allow verification. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Xegma(talk) 14:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, barely meet WP:GNG. Esthersp (talk) 19:20, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 02:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetness (upcoming film)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to be exempted from the main notability criteria for films at WP:NFILM.
There are just six footnotes here, of which two are the self-published Instagram posts of one of the producers, one is a press release self-published by a funding body, and one is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a "submitted article" (i.e. really just another press release) about the overall film and television industry in the region where this film was shot, none of which are support for notability.
That leaves just two hits that actually represent reliable and GNG-building coverage about this film, which is not enough coverage to exempt a film from the standard film notability criteria -- the special WP:NFF criteria require a lot of production coverage, not just one or two hits.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when this gets released and starts generating reviews by professional film critics, but two hits of production coverage is not enough to already justify an article now. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release--and reviews--come in. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or draftify;; opposed to deletion given existing coverage and notable cast (production, premise and cast are verifiable and this is a good start). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than just two hits of coverage to make a film notable this far in advance of release. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This is a nice start, but we need to think of this as less "this will release" and more "what if it never releases". If the film were to get indefinitely shelved then we have to consider if the article would pass NFILM based on its current coverage. Unfortunately it doesn't at this point in time. At present there is no set release date, so it could release this year or it could release two years from now. Or not at all. It could also be quietly released and gain no reviews. It wouldn't be the first film to receive this treatment, particularly in the horror/thriller genres. I do think that the article is a good start and it would be a shame to lose the work, so I support anyone who wants to take the article on as a draft. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Malware#Antivirus / Anti-malware software. ✗plicit 02:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Subversion Software

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

No RS found that uses this specific terminology to describe this class of software. Sohom (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Sohom (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand more on my rationale, I'm aware (and not doubting the fact) that cybersecurity software exists that does this exact thing. However, there is literally no RS that calls it "anti-subversion software". Sohom (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malware#Antivirus_/_Anti-malware_software: unless a better target can be found. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as it is an obvious hoax, and maybe redirect it to the antivirus page. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Wikipedia appears to be the primary source for this term, which is never a good sign. Brandon (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jonathan Dove#Works. ✗plicit 00:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Song (Dove)

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

This fails WP:GNG as it entirely relies on 2 sources which is a primary source and I cannot find any RS sites talking about the opera Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 1 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!} 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonathan Dove#Works -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Jonathan Dove#Works. Esthersp (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byeon Seong-tae

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing during a particular filming and as an alternate role doesn't always show notability, because sometimes, those type of actors aren't covered in multiple reliable sources. And that's the see here. Appearing also in music videos doesn't show either, hence this is a prompt lack of WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Entertainment, and South Korea. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 13:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:REALITYSINGER. cyberdog958^Talk 23:14, 8 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.