Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

18 November 2024
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      November 23 (Sat)      November 22 (Fri)      November 21 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Subaqueous volcano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Synonym of submarine volcano, I propose that this article is turned into a REDIRECT which leads to Submarine volcano. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term "submarine volcano" refers to volcanoes under the ocean whereas "subaqueous volcano" is used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes.

Volcanoguy 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. For illustration, see the editorial and pretty much every contribution in this FES special issue on subaqueous volcanism. If the article is meant to refer to lacustrine volcanism, which to some degree seems to be a recognized sub-category, then it will have to be renamed; and reworked, because it currently is happily covering submarine volcanism - e.g., those Honshu deposits are submarine, and there is a section "Seafloor exploration". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup, this is supported by all the literature I found, hence why I nominated the article. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Gouk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not seeing much grounds for encyclopedic notability here, looks like a meritorious but not unusual career so far. Plant pathology citations are generally fairly low in my experience, but there's only a single coauthored paper with moderate citations (59) that I can see. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, most of the references are not significant and fail WP:GNG Kaizenify (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced SCSI Programming Interface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet the bar for WP: N. I can't find any reliable source that isn't written by Brian Sawert. I found a student project by Johannes Lieder, some passing mentions, and a couple of sources whose reliability seems questionable at best, but without another source to establish notability, I believe this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject substantially covered in a 46-page chapter in Sawert's book The Programmer's Guide to SCSI (1998, Addison-Wesley); in a much shorter but still substantial page in Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PCs (2003, Que); in a 1995 Toronto Star article; in PC Mag and InfoWorld; and more. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand Sawert's written about this at length, but generally we need multiple authors to establish independence. I also understand the other sources are reliable, but could you show how these sources provide in-depth coverage, ideally with quotations? Some of these don't look like significant coverage on face. Thanks for your hard work. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In Mueller 2003, pages 563–564 and 771–772 in particular cover ASPI in depth. The Toronto Star article explicitly identifies itself as an article about ASPI ("This week, we'll talk about ASPI – the Advanced SCSI Programming Interface") and covers the background of SCSI and conflicts in the peripheral industry that inspired its invention. The InfoWorld article is an announcement of its introduction and the PC Mag article declares it the most popular of three competing SCSI standards and recognizes it as essentially the de facto standard for writing drivers for parallel SCSI devices two years after its invention. I found yet more sigcov in Computer Technology Review and PC Week. It was a fairly big deal in the computer industry for a while in the 1990s, even though USB obsoleted it in short order. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, this is great. Do you mind adding this to the article? You don't have to add everything here -- adding any one of these to the article is good enough for me. I certainly won't stop you if you want to though. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination after that's done. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A few minutes in a simple WP:BEFORE search yielded a number of sources in addition the ones above: The Book of SCSI: A Guide for Adventurers, appendix D ,Data Storage Fundamentals, PC Hardware in a Nutshell, Advanced SCSI Programming Interface by Adaptec. All these in depth sources except the Adaptec reference (which is primary, but authoritative, given they created the standard) are secondary and the book of SCSI in in depth. Along with the press coverage cited above, this demonstrates notability per WP:GNG. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mind adding these sources to the article? Any one of these is good enough for me, but feel free to them all if you wish! HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azlan Mohd Lazim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability-tagged for 11 years. Fails WP:ONEEVENT. It's hard to understand why a biography about this person (not that it is a real biography at the moment) is warranted. Geschichte (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IForIndia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability-tagged for 11 years. Fails WP:10YT and WP:NORG. Didn't get off the ground insofar as the website is dead and the Facebook page was last updated in 2019. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NORG. --Tupungato (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. They might do great work, but they don’t pass our standards for notability. This should’ve been deleted years ago. Bearian (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and page is clearly WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I reviewed all the references thoroughly, but none provide detailed information about the subject. As a result, it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:NCORP). Baqi:) (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illya Tsaryuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Played half a game of football with no significant coverage cited here nor on Ukrainian Wikipedia (although the latter has more content, the sources are all non-independent or database sources). My own searches yielded Champion and UA Football, neither of which are anywhere near enough for even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, a lower bar than WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. If this isn't a failure to "make any credible claim of significance or importance", nothing is. Geschichte (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not A7 eligible. GiantSnowman 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kambal sa Uma (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entirely unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search brings up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Philippines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy keep. Passes WP:NTVNATL. Show aired in 2009, or 15 years ago. Link rot is real, and the ABS-CBN News references I used in 2010 Philippine presidential election are all dead (LOL). this PEP.ph reference pushes above WP:GNG. Withdraw the nomination, and stop wasting our time. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Broadcast on a major national network; notable cast, verifiable (https://ent.abs-cbn.com/articles-photos/throwback-shaina-magdayao-and-melissa-ricks-in-kambal-sa-uma-14712 (not independent)): a redirect is warranted anyway (so opposed to deletion). Also see https://www.pep.ph/news/local/3704/kambal-sa-uma-will-premiere-on-april-20 (anecdotic coverage in https://www.spot.ph/entertainment/54092/bida-problems?s=nhaip66nt38j6qs6u1lmg53ang for the record) -Mushy Yank. 10:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stuart Lewis Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Article is written in a promotional tone and sources provided do not discuss Lewis in any significant way, but focus on the company (and in some the company itself is only mentioned in the article). ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United Kingdom, and Scotland. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Reliable Sources: Since the original comment, several additional reliable sources have been included, including articles from Screen Daily, which discuss The Mise En Scène Company's involvement in international film markets and provide specific insights into the company's activities under Paul Stuart Lewis Yates' leadership. This coverage in trade publications highlights Yates’ influence on MSC's growth and market strategies, directly linking his role to the company's achievements in the independent film industry.
• Notability through Independent Coverage: Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP ) requires subjects to be covered by reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. With trade magazines like Screen Daily now among the references, Yates meets this criterion, as the sources highlight MSC’s market presence and contributions to film sales, directly attributing these developments to Yates’ leadership. Coverage from sources of this caliber signals Yates' relevance within the industry.
• Significant Industry Contributions (WP ): According to Wikipedia’s Notability for Biographies (WP ), individuals who have significantly contributed to their field are considered notable. Yates’ work in expanding MSC’s presence at major markets like Cannes and the European Film Market shows his influence in promoting independent films globally. As the founder and executive, he has shaped MSC’s strategies, making him a notable figure in the film sales industry.
• Neutral Tone and Factual Focus: The article has been carefully revised to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone, focusing on verifiable facts about Yates’ career and impact. By including only sourced information about his contributions, the article aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards and avoids promotional language.

Demosthenes1999 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply looks AI-generated, please let's keep the discussion among humans. AI answers tend to be severely bloated, as the one above indeed is. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that's semi correct, I had AI re-format my argument points to make them more coherent but also to save time. AI edited but not generated. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: a small section to the Mise en Scene company article would seem fine. I don't think the individual is notable without the company. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that sounds good, but I don't think saying someone is not notable when you remove the thing that makes them notable makes any sense, like I don't think The king is notable without his crown sort of thing, just doesn't really make sense. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is completely fine for EnWiki. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any relevant content to The Mise En Scene Company. No evidence of independent notability, a check shows all online sources are for activity done by the company with him as a signatory or spokesperson, which speaks to his importance within the company but not to any wider relevance outside it, so a brief mini-bio in the company article is both logical and sufficient. Crowsus (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense I can’t really argue against that specifically. I made the profile based on emerging influence and potential trajectory. Mainly from my interest in a couple of their films which I want to make profiles for eventually, the True Don Quixote and Anchorage I figured it matches with past precedents on wikipedia for founders and having a separate profile means it can be tracked and updated a bit easier. I have a friend who works at screen who says they’ve got some good projects on the horizon. I can’t argue against merging exactly though cause that is in line with policy but I’m obviously biased cause I wrote it lol. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

It should be highlighted that Paul Yates is recognized in sources as the founder of the company, a role far more significant than that of a mere signatory or spokesperson as suggested above.

This distinction aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on “biographies of living persons” and “businesspeople,” where founders with documented influence, leadership, or innovation in their fields have greater justification for a separate article than someone solely acting in a representative capacity. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it says "documented". This means that there must be reliable sources significantly discussing him and his influence, leadership, or innovation (or even his emerging influence or potential trajectory). At the moment there are none, only sources noting that he is the founder of the company. (Also you have recommended "keep" twice, when you should only do so once, so I will strike out the first "keep" as redundant.) ... discospinster _talk 21:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking the keep, sorry trying to get used this chat room format. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• used to Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the articles discuss the company the person founded, which can still contribute to demonstrating their notability, but clutching on straws by that point though. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two guardian articles as extra references, the two Guardian articles are reviewing films represented by MSC and do not directly mention Paul Yates or the company, but they demonstrate MSC’s significant activity in the U.K. This activity occurred under Yates' leadership as founder and executive, indirectly highlighting his role in the company’s reach and success. While this may not fully satisfy WP for a standalone biography, it underscores the impact of MSC, which should be taken into account when evaluating Yates’ contributions and emerging influence in the film industry. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage. The references in the article are primarily about the organization and do not mention him at all. The only information about him is one .gov listing as a company officer and his own writing. Lamona (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree with the "delete" rationale. The coverage from Screen Daily is significant, as it is a recognized authority in the film industry. The article specifically mentions Paul Yates in the context of founding his company and details how it was formed, thus establishing his role and relevance. This aligns with Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

If additional sources are required, I am happy to contribute further research to strengthen the article. However, I believe the Screen Daily coverage alone demonstrates notability, as it is both independent and detailed. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very short article (14 sentences) in which a goodly portion is quotes from him. It is not enough to establish notability. Lamona (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - if none of the sources show significant coverage, I’m not sure what purpose a merger would serve. Many filmmakers, including my partner of 17 years, have had films screened at Cannes; it’s not automatically notable. I’m looking at his posters right now on the wall. It’s not a big deal. Bearian (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d like to clarify that Paul Yates is not a filmmaker. His notability comes from his work as the founder of The Mise En Scène Company (MSC), as highlighted in independent, reliable sources like Screen Daily. These sources discuss his role in establishing and shaping MSC, which directly addresses Wikipedia's notability criteria. Comparing him to filmmakers misses the point of the article, which is focused on his contributions as a business founder and media professional. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ultimately this is similar to a high school head teacher or a university professor - the organisation is notable and they avean important, pivotal, irreplaceable role in the organisation as well as a figurehead so are mentioned, quoted and pictured frequently in connection with that, but unless they have something making them out individually from the many other professors / headteachers / business founders / media professionals, there isn't enough to justify a biography article here. Crowsus (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah sorry but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the analogy of a head teacher or university professor. The distinction is that Paul Yates founded The Mise En Scène Company, which inherently ties the company’s notability to his individual activities and vision. Unlike a head teacher, who operates within an existing framework, Paul Yates created the framework itself and has been directly involved in shaping the company’s growth and success. Reliable sources, such as Screen Daily, reference his specific actions, including founding the company and negotiating deals with notable entities like Signature Entertainment, 1091, and Bulldog Entertainment. This demonstrates that his individual contributions are pivotal and worthy of recognition on their own merits. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there any sources for him outside the sphere of Mise en Scene? Crowsus (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are government records listing his name and involvement with companies, as well as a published piece in an online travel magazine. While these might not independently establish notability, they contribute to demonstrating his activity and public presence in professional contexts beyond MSC. However, the core of his notability lies in the independent recognition of his foundational and operational role at MSC, which aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines for notable business figures.

  While the majority of the independent coverage focuses on Paul Yates' role with The Mise En Scène Company, this is not unusual for business founders whose notability is tied to their entrepreneurial achievements. The sources, such as Screen Daily, are significant and reliable, explicitly highlighting his contributions, such as founding MSC and negotiating deals with major companies. This level of individual coverage goes beyond simply being "associated with" an organization. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the concern about additional sources, but I strongly believe Yates is well within the guidelines for notability. The key sources, such as Screen Daily, Deadline, Variety all provide independent, significant coverage of his role in founding and shaping The Mise En Scène Company, which directly satisfies Wikipedia’s requirements for business figures. While it’s true that he may not have an overwhelming number of sources outside MSC, the ones that exist are reliable and substantive enough to demonstrate his notability as a business founder.

  To compare him to a head teacher or university professor misses the point: Yates is not just a figurehead or a leader within an existing organization; he created the organization and has had a direct impact on its growth and success. His role in negotiating high-profile deals with companies like Signature Entertainment and Bulldog Entertainment further distinguishes him.

  It seems we are quibbling over the technicalities of what constitutes "significant" coverage, but I believe that within the context of Wikipedia’s guidelines, the available coverage clearly supports his notability. At this point, the focus should be on the substantive and independent recognition of his work, which is the primary measure of notability. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to focus on one of the sources the Screen Daily article provides clear evidence of Paul S.L. Yates’ notability through his active role in founding and shaping Mise en Scène Company (MSC). The article highlights Yates as a former Devilworks acquisitions coordinator, which establishes his background and expertise in the film industry. It further discusses how he and his co-founder met during their time working as night-shift porters at The Ritz London which is mad, and how, after being furloughed during the pandemic, they spent significant time developing MSC. This narrative not only emphasizes Yates' entrepreneurial initiative in response to the challenges of the pandemic but also underscores the active role he played in crafting MSC’s identity and strategy. The article also references the company's ethos, noting that Yates’ values of creativity, integrity, and passion were integral to its creation. This foundational leadership, along with the decision to launch MSC during a difficult period, positions Yates as a key figure behind the company’s success, demonstrating his independent notability in the film industry. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I have no issue whatsoever with your sincerity or tone, due to three replies - which are basically repeating yourself - to one question, at this point I refer you to WP:BLUDGEON. Crowsus (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  HI, I didn't know about that thank you for the referral, I'll keep it mind in the future thanks. :) Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:INHERITED, this subject has got little coverage only because of its creator Asaram. The coverage of this subject is nil since Asaram's own image is going through a deep crisis for many years. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Parents Worship Day is a widely celebrated festival in India. It is well recognized by government officials. As stated in the article: It is officially celebrated by the Chhattisgarh Govt in schools and colleges as ordered by the Chief Minister. State government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party made it an official celebration. In 2017 the District collector in Madhya Pradesh issued a notice for schools to celebrate it and so on. There are a lot of independent and reliable references which prove the validity of these statements. This article must not be nominated for discussion just because the image of the initiator i.e. Asaram Bapu is under crisis. Wikipedia is a platform that depends on facts and notability of an article and this festival is being celebrated since more than 10 years in India and it's a compulsory program to attend for thousands of school students all over India. SukritiVarma (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Parents Worship Day is day that's being celebrated officially by the government now. This celebration is compulsory in schools as is evident by these references: ^[1][2] There are lot more such references, I don't see any valid reason why this page was nominated for deletion, it must be retained. SushasiniGupta (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your sources are only saying that this was a government action. Not every day propagated by the government needs to have their own article. Same way we have no article on "Samvidhan Hatya Diwas".[1] CharlesWain (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Worship Day is not just a government action, this is a festival that's quite widely accepted by the masses. Since this is a festival that celebrates emotional bond between parents and children, so people of all religion are accepting it. It cannot be compared with Samvidhan Hatya Diwas. Because this festival is celebrated by masses not only in India but in abroad as well.

1. Even Muslims are celebrating this day as Abba Ammi Ibadat Diwas [2]

2. Sanatan Dharam Sabha Celebrates “Matra Pitra Poojan Diwas” [3]

3. News coverage: More than 10,000 people celebrated this event in Kurla [4] SushasiniGupta (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The existence of this article, at the present moment, tantamounts to WP:SOAP. CharlesWain (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Both of the editors who voted for "keep" above are blatant WP:SPAs and have edited nothing outside this topic.[5][6] CharlesWain (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As per WP: Neutral Point of View - Articles with reliable sources must be retained, even if the subject is controversial. Decisions in Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion discussions are determined by the strength of arguments based on policies, such as WP:Notability, rather than the edit count of participants. My reasoning highlights the independent cultural significance of Parents Worship Day and its coverage in reliable sources, demonstrating that the topic's notability extends beyond its association with its creator. SushasiniGupta (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't use an AI platform to write AfD rationales, or copy basic AfD policies we should all already know. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. No SIGCOV or any long lasting effect. INHERITED is fulfilled. The keep !votes are misleading and do not bring up any credible argument based on our P&Gs. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Parents Worship Day has become a cultural event observed by various schools and communities, reflecting its relevance beyond its initial introduction. The day promotes values of respect and gratitude toward parents, which hold significance in societal traditions. Multiple independent sources have documented its observance, indicating it has received attention outside of its originator’s influence. Removing the article would overlook an established practice that resonates with many individuals and groups. I'mAll4 Wiki (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Per WP:DLC dislike for the subject or Dislike of the creator should not be reason for over-zealous article deletion, the notability of the article should be independently assessed. The nominator of this deletion lists down very plainly their dislike for creator, without arguing on quality or notability of article itself.

If we can find multiple secondary sources WP:DIVERSE covering this event outside any reference to its creator, this article should not be deleted

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE across years (even after presumed interest waning on creator) is another factor in favor of this article

1. https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-jammu-redefines-the-day-as-mother-father-worship-day-2584739 authored by Ishfaq-ul-Hassan on DNA India
2. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/community/parents-worship-day-on-february-14-40462/ on The Tribune India

Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They merely noted the subject is controversial and has a shaky public image. Hardly anywhere near WP:IDLI and just stating a known fact. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MrSchimpf - i was also merely stating that deletion nomination did not highlight anything apart from creator image and per Wikipedia:INHERITED if creator’s notability cannot be used to lend notability to article, vice-versa also may not apply Nisingh.8 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is at best a news release as it concerns celebration of this day by Satsang Prachar Sewa Mandal. Your second source does not even have author information and uses a byline, it's very clearly a press release per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Asaram#Teachings and views, which is much clearer about the event than this collection of press releases barely holding this article together, and which has nothing at all (I can't even call it a false balance) from those who still wish to celebrate Valentine's Day and their opposition to this event. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis are you calling independent news coverages as press release?

  If people in India are celebrating Parents Worship Day and government is also making the celebration compulsory in schools, that itself proves how widely this is being adopted in India. It's okay that other people in Western countries or even in India prefer celebrating Valentine's Day but that doesn't mean you are going to delete this page.SushasiniGupta (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the stories specifically say that very few actual people wanted to celebrate it and it was forced upon them as an administrative or government mandate rather than an organic celebration. One of the stories is literally a state education minister putting out PR for the holiday to cover up the subject's various public issues. There are no counter-sources about how others feel about a holiday being forced upon them when another holiday has existed for hundreds of years to celebrate, and the vast majority of sources here talk about veneration of parents, even if they do completely unforgivable things, over loving others. There's no balance here to be found, just blatant PR for an effort to force a holiday upon people. Nate • (chatter) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis are you saying it's a forced one, there are lots of references where students became emotional and expressed gratitude for celebrating the unique bond that they have with parents.

  Here is the quote from this reference [7]: "We invited our parents to the school and offered them flowers, worshipped them and finally sought their blessings," said Nishant Mishra, a Class-V student

  "It was really a very touching moment for me. At least these children would learn how important parents are for them," Lipsa Parida, a mother of two boys.

  Since these are quotes, now don't tell me these 5th class kids and their parents are doing PR. they are expressing what they felt and this is covered in news.

  Even Muslims students were touched by this day, another quote[8] Aliya Pathan, a student, said, “In Islam, they say that jannat is beneath your parents’ feet and they should be treated with a lot of respect. So, we decided to celebrate Valentine’s Day by pledging to take care of our parents.” Umair Sheikh, another student, said, “Love comes in so many forms. SushasiniGupta (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Given the detailed history and widespread adoption of Parents' Worship Day across various Indian states and institutions, the topic demonstrates cultural significance and societal impact. The celebration has been officially recognized by state governments such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Gujarat, and has gained support from educational institutions, NGOs, and community organizations. Independent media coverage highlights its relevance as a family-centric alternative to Valentine's Day. These factors satisfy Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines, making it an important cultural phenomenon worth retaining as an article. Exposethefacts (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Gptzero result for this comment came to be 73% AI generated. Also real world notability=/= Wikipedia notability, you have to prove how this article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines and standards on that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Replying after relisting) @Ratnahastin I was trying to broaden up on coverage and notability of event outside its creator, and while below is not comprehensive lists but could eaily find mentions on observance of this event/day at many other places below via simple search -

  • Parents Worship Day at a school in Jalandhar [9]
  • Parents Worship Day at a school [Kendriya Vidyalaya Cossipore] in Kolkata [10]
  • Parents Worship Day event at Rotoract Club of Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Indore [11] (p-175)
  • Parents Worship Day as one of the program arranged by National Association for Blind, India [12] (p-39)
  • Parents Worship Day by Sri Venkateswara Temple, Michigan, US [13]

  Nisingh.8 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If all you could find are some random no name schools celebrating this day, then I'm afraid you are only corroborating my point that real world notability=/=Wikipedia notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For an article to be notable on Wikipedia, there should be reliable, independent sources, and there exists multiple such sources for Parents Worship Day page. Following are few of the reliable sources for your verification. FYI: These are from the most reliable news websites in India such as : BBC, Times of India etc.

  It's official: Chhattisgarh renames Valentines Day as 'Matru-Pitru Diwas'. ^[1]

  Parents Worship Day: After Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand To Implement Jailed Godman Asaram’s Advice ^[2][3]

  Chhattisgarh makes Parents Worship Day a compulsory observance in schools on February 14 ^[4]

  FYI: I hope you got a gist of how this is notable in terms of Wiki policies, please refer the article and go through all the 30+ references present there. This is a discussion not a list of references so I mentioned only 4. SushasiniGupta (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Real World notability and Wiki notability both criteria are met in this particular article since this festival is famous in real world and a lot of reliable ref links exist to suffice the notabilitySushasiniGupta (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Parents' Worship Day Wiki page is supported by independent, reliable and multiple reference links. This is a day that's celebrated across India since the theme has an emotional touch. That's the reason why even though the initiator Asaram Bapu's image is under question currently but this concept has been widely adopted even by government and general public. Just do a Google Search and see tons of references for the enormous acceptance and recognition of this festival.

Those trying to delete this article seem to be doing so just because of initiator's image as mentioned in the comment of the person who initiated the deletion process. But Wiki is not a place to target a page for deletion because the initiator is out of favor.

Let's say a person founded a company or was instrumental in initiating or promulgation of a concept like Tree Plantation Day etc. a concept that is getting wide recognition by public and founder was jailed later, would you delete the company's page as well? Wiki is not a place to target initiatives just because they are from someone whose actions you do not support. Seems an irrelevant discussion and people who saying delete are acting out of emotion not logic. Remember this festival is no longer only associated with its initiator Asaram Bapu, it's now a celebration across countless schools and colleges. Nandwanirajesh (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat this one more time; there is a non-existent balance with this article where it talks only in glowing terms about the holiday, its inventor, and how it's being used as an alternative to V-Day and being forced upon others without any question or criticism. Local school newsletters are not only non-notable, but also non-neutral, and the fact it is being made compulsory to celebrate when V-Day is a completely voluntary holiday needs to be elaborated on, and at this point this feels like an article that never has any intentions about talking about it neutrally. Finally, stating the inventor has some controversial views is not the reason for deletion here and is supported by BLP and will not be removed. Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No WP:SIGCOV sources found. I agree with the nominator that this article should be deleted. Our notability guidelines are simple: it require multiple independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject to meet notability or justify a stand-alone article. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. There does not exist any valid reason why this deletion discussion was initiated. Initiator's image is irrelevant to the concept associated with this article. Especially when it's being widely adopted by students of various schools and colleges. There are multiple reliable and independent coverages of the day.^[5][6] Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both are Godi media sources. First one is a promotional article while second one is about a proposal. Also, I think you should also describe why you never edited any other AfD before !voting on this one? - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Apart from references already contained in the article, can find this topic being covered in WP:SECONDARY sources such as research papers^[7] which critically analyze the introduction of event and its relevance in South Asian culture among other things. As such find notability criteria met Naveentirthani (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But where does this source provide any coverage to this subject? Can you also tell why you never edited any AfD before this one? - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the quote from the International Journal of Postcolonial Studies: Kothari, R., & Shah, A. (2017). Dil Se: Love, Fantasy and Negotiation in Hindi Film Songs. Interventions, 19(4), 532–549. DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2017.1294101 [14]

  - "Francesca Orsini mentions that although romantic love – using either the English term or its Indian equivalent, prem – became an established ideal by the beginning of the twentieth century, the patriarchal system has made few allowances for it or the emergence of the modern couple (2006, 33). The substitution of Valentine’s Day with Parents’ Worship Day in the pamphlet above zones in on one of the deepest anxieties in South Asia: the supplanting of the family with the selfishness of the couple. The use of the Sanskrit words “Matr[u] DevoBhava” and “Pitr[u]DevoBhava”, followed by an English translation, is a conscious linguistic strategy to establish both the cultural continuity and antiquity of this goal."

  If you wish to read download the complete journal, you may try this link: [15] or [16]

  Apart from that, I am a contributor to this article, so it is obvious for me to participate in this ongoing discussion. I don't know why you are expecting me to participate in multiple AFD discussions in order to share my views here. I am an editor of this article and I think that reason is more than enough for justifying my participation in this discussion. Naveentirthani (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It has been in the NPP for a very long time. Unable to find sufficient significant coverage, fails WP:ORG. - The9Man ^Talk 11:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - cursory source for sources - Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Law360, Financial Times, Independent, The Times, The Guardian, Birmingham Mail, The Grocer. Bristol Post. New York Times, TheJournal.ie, Wired starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles I ended up with were just mentions. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to improve the article.- The9Man ^Talk 12:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The9Man, thank you. I created the Lost Mary article because the brand is ubiquitous in the UK. The area behind the till in every corner shop is covered in Lost Mary products. I was looking for information and couldn't believe there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia but I can contribute a photograph of an electronic cigarettes display showing the Lost Mary products, if this helps. Jfclemay (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfclemay, Thank you for your contribution! Wikipedia articles require coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You can read the guidelines here - WP:ORGCRIT. If you have sources such as news articles, industry publications, or other reputable coverage about the brand, adding those could strengthen the article. Additionally, photographs can be valuable, just be sure that any images you upload are your own work or that you have the proper permissions.

@Thanks again for your efforts! - The9Man ^Talk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect The sources above are all dicdefs for 'passing mention' as far as Lost Mary is concerned, listed in each as one of a number of 'brands of concern' and introduced typically with 'such as...' - Elf Bar might make the grade on coverage, albeit for all the wrong reasons. But Lost Mary is one of a large number of brands the company makes and does not merit an article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elf Bar, see Reuters. IgelRM (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that there Elf Bar article for some reason. Agree this makes sense as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Nothing that appears notability or encyclopedic content, is not because something exists that is relevant to an article. Svartner (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "we are also primarily a news organization" That is news to me. Since when are we supposed to simply offer news coverage instead of being an encyclopedia? Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.

  CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 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, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the external links in the article don't help establish notability (as they're either Mattin's website or interviews). Interestingly, the article was created by User:Mattata, whose only mainspace edits involve creating this article. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Literature, Music, and Spain. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is some coverage in The Wire, albeit paywalled. From the magazine's index, issue 267 (2006) looks to have the most coverage of the subject. More recently, there was a book review a year ago, in issue 476. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, I would be inclined to delete normally, due to the probable conflict of interest noted by the nominator, the sources shown by AllyD appear to display notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (for now). I did find two books with some content: 1) Audio Culture, Revised Edition: Readings in Modern Music. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 - pp. 406-409. 2) Kádár, Dániel Z.. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (one page). I don't think this rises to notability at this time. He did write a chapter in a book but it doesn't seem to be a book that has had an impact. Lamona (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent David Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added some references to this previously-unreferenced BLP of an actor. These are passing mentions, however. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 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, and Washington. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like the nominator, I was unable to find any significant coverage of Fraser, just cast listings and brief mentions in movie reviews. The closest to any biographical information was a Seattle Times movie review that added "Bellingham-raised" to his name (because it's local). (ProQuest 385333344) Not a notable actor at this time. Schazjmd (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note, often credited as the shorter name Brent Fraser. Satisfies NACTOR with significant roles in Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue (as Brent Fraser, and Dead & Breakfast. (When I am able I will add sourcing that verifies that). Mentions in reviews is an important part of judging actors. They act in things. That's what they are known for. That's the sort of thing that should be in encyclopaedias. Who'd they play and in what. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I’m hoping for the promised citations, but not holding my breath for a week. Bearian (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Finally managed to get some sources onto the page. then there is also [17], [18], [19] and [20] (last has a quote from New York Times). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the many added sources on the article and the links to dedicated articles above I think there is enough for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Community of Camden, NJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be a nonnotable topic cobbled together from discussions of Black organizations in Camden. There doesn't appear to be a "The Black Community of Camden" that this is talking about. Appears to be WP:SYNTH. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Although the original article text was more a list of organizations, I have added some references discussing African-American history in the city, and it seems like there could be enough to sustain an article. This is not even touching more modern history, as there seems to be quite a bit of coverage around Camden's police department and its restructuring and how that relates to Black Lives Matter protests. I do agree that the sections focusing on organizations could be trimmed or deleted. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/undo split Yes, Camden, New Jersey, was way too long and detailed in many sections, with paragraphs about non-notable non-profits, youth groups, and restaurants that do not typically have this type of coverage in other city articles. But that does not mean this content should have just been split into other pages that keep the same problems. The same goes for Redevelopment of Camden, New Jersey, Arts and entertainment in Camden, New Jersey, Hispanic and Latino community of Camden, New Jersey, and other pages this user just split from the main article. I suggest undoing/remerging all of these edits and then trimming the outdated news, irrelevant name-dropping, and other unencyclopedic details (there is a lot though). Reywas92^Talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify this article and the other ones listed. Many of these are probably notable topics, but I agree that they are unready for the mainspace in their current state. For example, I found an article on the Black power movement in Camden and one on redevelopment. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to African Americans in New Jersey.-KH-1 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hykeham Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hykeham Memorial is not a place, certainly not a "suburb". It is a ward for elections to North Hykeham Town Council. There is nothing more to say about it, although some demographic statistics exist. It is not notable. (The one mildly interesting thing about it might have been an explanation of its name, as the North Hykeham Memorial Hall is within the ward and presumably gave it the name, but this has not been included.Perhaps the mentions of the Memorial Hall and park in the North Hykeham article could be enhanced with a "(which gives its name to Memorial ward)", but that's all that's needed.)

I note that North Hykeham#Governance does not mention the individual wards, and suggest that a list of wards there would be more appropriate than this article and others, for wards which have no existence except as lines on a map to define, for now, the electorate for lowest-level local elections. Hykeham Memorial is not notable, and Wikipedia does not need this article. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment while we're at it, what's with Hykeham, an utterly pointless "article" that began as an attempt to avoid a railway station from being a red-link, and now attempts to join the substantial urban area of North Hykeham with a couple of country lanes on a map that are south of it and identified as South Hykeham, but really have nothing much in common apart from being adjacent. The railway station that engendered Hykeham is nowhere near South Hykeham and should better have been redirected to North Hykeham. Elemimele (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies to the residents of South Hykeham, which does indeed exist. I have nominated Hykeham for AfD as an unnecessary dab with only two targets, unhelpful to readers. As for Hykeham Memorial, I personally see no value in articles covering the demographics of this low level of electoral region, but I defer to those who enjoy such things. Elemimele (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have no need for articles about wards of parishes and it is not a good use of anybody's time to be creating them. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree there should not be articles for parish wards, but Hykeham Memorial (formerly North Hykeham Memorial) (https://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fstatistical-geography%2FE05014436), with the same boundaries as the parish ward (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/north_kesteven_order_map.pdf), is a ward of North Kesteven district. Peter James (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Sinicyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Czech Republic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – All I found on Czech news media were passing mentions like 1 and 2. This might be the closest source describing Sinicyn but likewise is not written in significant detail. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Watch Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The company is not notable (NCORP) the sources are paid and of bad quality not being reliable and independent with deep coverage of the company; 25lucky (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This and this both listed on the page are neither paid or bad quality. They both seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unless there is something I am missing you can point out. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Boston Globe and Axios items are both WP:SIGCOV that pass the threshold for WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Hunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe this article should be deleted for a few reasons; the first and most major is notability. I do not believe, at least as of this time, this duo is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. The article lacks sources, only featuring one that was put in the article in 2015. I've searched for sources to add to the article and can only find one article, a Pitchfork review, on an album they published, rather than the duo themselves. The article uses non-neutral language, such as "other noise/freak weirdos". It also contains a lot of unsourced speculation, stating that part of the duo is working on a full-length album, but this has never been published or confirmed by any source. Most of the wikilinks on the article go to non-existant pages, and no pages for the discography of the duo exist at all. This page has existed for years (since 2004 according to the edit history) and in that time, no verifiable and trustworthy sources have given notable information about the duo. Beachweak (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a Pitchfork review ([21]) and an AllMusic review ([22]). toweli (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews are focused on an album created by the duo, Smarmymob, rather than the duo themselves. Beachweak (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just noting the existence of two reviews. Leaning delete, unless more sources are found. toweli (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no sources to establish notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Also found reviews of Smarmymob in Stylus Magazine [23], Dusted Magazine [24], Suburban Voice [25] and this more trivial output: [26] and this one: [27] @Beachweak of course reviews are of albums. Albums are what musicians make. Do you propose an article is written about the album instead? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think if there are enough reviews of the album (which there are proving to be), an article could be written about Smarmymob; however, the article on the duo themselves doesn't seem notable enough to be kept, at least as of right now. It's ten years old and only has one, weak source. Beachweak (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you agree that Neon Hunk then should be preserved as a redirect to Smarmybob, failing a keep outcome here? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a bad idea to turn the page into a redirect rather than deleting it entirely; somebody would have to write the article on the album, though. Maybe delete the page until an article is published and then turn it into a redirect? Beachweak (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that under WP:A9, if the band/musician is non-notable and has no article, then an article for their album needs solid evidence that it has significance. I'm not sure if the few scattered reviews for Smarmybob will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many would it need? As far as getting reviews go, it doesn't get much more significant than Pitchfork, and I think the other ones look very promising in sum. I'm somewhat struggling to take the proposition seriously that an album with Pitchfork, Allmusic and other reviews would be regarded as a speedy candidate. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, WP:A9 is there for a reason. An album article is not particularly encyclopedic when an interested reader cannot learn more about the band because they're not notable enough for their own article. That's my take on this side discussion about the album, and otherwise I am undecided about deleting or keeping the band and will have to leave it at that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about the album; my proposition is to delete the page ABOUT the duo. In the future, there could be an article written about the album, but the duo Neon Hunk, at least right now, are not very notable source wise. If you review the article right now, there is one source that isn't very descriptive (and currently leads to a 404). Apart from that, the entire article is unsourced. I still think it should be deleted unless more sources about the duo are found. Beachweak (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Doomsdayer Geschichte (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: as a rule, I ask that proponents of new sources to keep an article be included for me to evaluate the results for WP: HEY. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On first read I thought the discovery of "'hobbit'-like primates" mentioned (I think it must be Homo floresiensis that is meant?) must surely have generated GNG, but it looks like that might just be a mistake; according to D'Alto, Nick. In Search of Hobbits. Odyssey, Oct2009, Vol. 18, Issue 8, p6-8 (via Ebsco) he is just commenting on the discovery in the University of Minnesota News. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A quick WP:BEFORE check shows that the article at the time of nomination buried the lede: he is a full professor (research) at University of Minnesota (an R1 research school) and also department chair (and possibly was head of undergraduate studies at some point too), which, with the "hobbit-primate" research (which made national news if I remember, and there is evidence that this research was covered with McNulty's name attached in Nature) is of a research profile significantly above the average professor. A quick search finds news articles about invited speakerships for him, etc.[28] -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of being a full professor, department chair, or giving invited talks at universities satisfies any of the notability criteria in WP:NPROF, they are all routine. As pointed out by @Espresso Addict he was not a coauthor on the "hobbit" paper, and making a comment on another paper is certainly not even close to notable. Please check carefully the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Ldm1954 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  N.B., as a quick clarification, WP:NPROF#C6 is specific that being a Dean is not a proof of notability, so department chair certainly is not. Being a full professor does not satisfy WP:NPROF#C5, and departmental colloquia are excluded by WP:NPROF#C1e. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mscuthbert Is McNulty a co-author on any of these papers? He certainly wasn't on the original Nature publications on Homo floresiensis cited in our article [29][30]. Just being quoted as an expert on a topic in the media is not usually held to confer notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

  So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [31]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordillera Negra (Chile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.

Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nomination has been withdrawn but there are outstanding arguments to Delete this article and a proposal to Redirect it so it can't be closed at this moment until there is a consensus for a specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Refs. 1 and 2 are sufficient to indicate that this place exists and has that name. I can't check ref. 3 because I haven't got access to the book. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the current state of the article isn't great, I think we have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I found academic sources that discuss the use of emotes on Twitch^[8][9] and there are other online sources that specifically discuss emotes (as distinct from emojis),^[10][11] so I don't think redirecting would be appropriate. There appears to be enough sourcing to maintain a separate article, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• On further consideration, there is some overlap between how emotes and emojis are used (one paper describes emotes as "platform-specific emojis"),^[12] but I still think there is enough discussion of emotes as a distinct term to warrant a stand-alone article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And can any of those be used to write a cohesive article on emotes in general, as opposed to an example farm?

  Even if expanded, I foresee it becoming like:

  "In one example, Twitch utilizes emotes. In another, Youtube uses emotes. In yet another, emotes are used in MMOs". And so on. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, "emotes" is used in a sense that is synonymous with emoji rather than its own entity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right that emotes and emojis are sometimes used synonymously, but in some contexts they are clearly distinct. Video game emotes (i.e., character animations that players can trigger) is a clearly distinct usage for instance. One source I found discusses a copyright lawsuit against Epic Games regarding the source of their emote animations;^[13] another source discusses the differences in how players perceive emotes vs. actual facial expressions;^[14] and there were more sources I saw on Google Scholar that I'm too lazy to cite at the moment. To your point, it will definitely be difficult to create a cohesive article because of these diverging uses of the term. However, I'm seeing quite a few academic sources that discuss the use of emotes in video games and live chats, so I'm still inclined to keep an article in some form. I'm open to discussion on what the scope of the article should be, how to structure it, etc. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's possible the article could be rewritten as Emote (video games). However, I don't think it would be the primary topic regardless, so I believe that my deletion proposal of this particular article in its current form still stands. In the current article there is nothing that merits keeping; it requires a full rewrite 100%. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because it requires a rewrite doesn't mean it should be deleted. AfD is not cleanup. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the Twitch emotes; depending on the severity of the coverage, would Twitch emotes not be a separate topic from emotes? Sort of similar to how Emoji has various other notable topics, like Eggplant emoji and Face with Tears of Joy emoji. I'm not sure it'd provide notability to the parent if it is an inherently separate, albeit notable topic.
  I do second Zx in that emotes seem to be a very wide-reaching topic, and the sourcing for them as a whole doesn't seem to be there like what Emojis seem to have. There may be several notable subtopics, but attempting to cover all these subtopics as one topic would be messy and potentially problematic. I won't vote yet until more is discussed, but I felt it would be worthwhile to ask about the above and get some clarity on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the issue seems to be that there are multiple topics this article could focus on. When it comes to emotes on livestreaming platforms, the sources seem to exclusively focus on Twitch emotes. I notice that Twitch emote already redirects to Twitch (service)#Emotes. Maybe it would make sense to rework this article to focus on emotes in video games and include a hatnote to Twitch (service)#Emotes where the platform-specific emotes are already covered? Like you, I'd like to get input from other editors on this, so I've struck my initial !vote pending further discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On second thought, it might make more sense to convert Emote to a disambiguation page. I'll need to dig into the sources a bit more before making a firm claim on what the primary topic is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lord Bolingbroke Good luck! Let me know how that goes. I'm partial to both of your responses, and I feel both could be feasible, but I'll need to see what sourcing is like before I make any significant judgement calls. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's Closet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This clothing store does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. The page was previously draftified, so I'm taking to AfD for discussion per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. All sources I am able to find are either passing mentions, routine coverage, or not independent of the store. The only mentions in reliable sources I found (e.g., [32][33]) seem to be very routine coverage – "new store opening in x location" type stories from local media outlets. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and United States of America. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Winmark, which already has a subsection on it. I'm finding listings and brief descriptions, but not significant coverage that would support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good catch, I'd agree with a merge and redirect Winmark#Plato's Closet. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I am confident I could likely find enough WP:ORGCRIT to keep based on just a few I found like this and this. Based on my experience with companies, those references indicate there are likely more but I don't have the time or patience. One issue we will run into when searching for soruces is that many franchises shotgun out so many press releases that it creates difficulty going through a sea of churnalism and routine announcements. It is also sufficiently covered at Winmark.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gedney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Salmon (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McDonald (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Milford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another sportsman article with scant sources. I do not see the article's raison d'etre. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Foreman (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Just a single primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I couldn't find sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on Amazon Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Total WP:ADMASQ. Since when is the station which covers NASCAR a notable intersection.? Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Fails WP:GNG. All I can see is four paragraphs: Announced, Reported, Announced and Announced. The references are highly similar, PR churnalism. For me this was close to CSD G11, but, since it is a disputed draftification I feel it deserves discussion. YMMV 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Business, Companies, and Motorsport. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per WP:ATD - meets WP:NFTV and WP:CRYSTAL as a confirmed future broadcast series. This broadcast series has reliable sourcing confirming its expecting occurrence (source 2, plus: The Athletic and Autoweek). Whether these sources are enough to meet GNG is another question. I'd have preferred the creator not have returned to mainspace from draftspace at this time to allow for better sourcing to be added to it, but citing WP:ADMASQ and contemplating WP:G11 is WP:TROUT-worthy. Returning to draft is the correct option. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney you are welcome to trout me, but that will not alter my opinion. Your comment dances very close to ad hominem. I'm old and ugly enough not to let that trouble me, but it is worthy of mention. I'm looking forward to the fish. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was focused on refuting the central point, with a mention of Wikipedia's old silly fish at the end. Apologies for coming off as overly hostile. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the levity and the apology, both. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not worthy of an article, fails on all of the points raised by the nominator. In looking for a potential redirect ATD, I see List of NASCAR broadcasters has been determined to be merged to NASCAR on television and radio, which, admittedly, is titled exactly wrongly as the destination for a redirect, so alas, I don't have much to offer here other than delete unfortunately. Expanded below. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is Prime technically television? Would it be an appropriate merge location should a new section be created? I think there may be a possible merge solution if so. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want to speak for the article creator, and I also am aware that I'm getting into WP:OTHERSTUFF here, but I don't doubtr that the idea of the article is to be akin to NASCAR on FOX, NASCAR on NBC, NASCAR on TNT, etc. Amazon won a portion of the NASCAR television broadcasting rights during the latest negotiations this year to air on Amazon Prime Video (along with the traditional TV networks I just mentioned).[34] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wholeheartedly agree and would expect that in future discussions a merge decision here would not preclude a truly notable article from occupying the mainspace. I agree with the nominator, however, that this appears to be a lot of churnalism or reporting on routine coverage, as given by the links by @Esolo5002 below. But what I'm not seeing now is independent coverage removed from the subject. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean keep. A television program of the highest league of a major American sport is almost always notable. Amazon announces a change in its broadcast booth, several reliable sources report on it [35], [36], [37]. I personally would not have moved this out of draftspace, and I'm not opposed to simply moving it back to draft. But this clearly will be notable and a straight deletion, merge or redirect is not something I would support. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As nominator I am not averse to draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means it could not be returned to draft unilaterally, but requires consensus. Those suggesting this course may wish to consider whether the topic as presented is capable of improvement or whether WP:TNT should be applied, potentially by consensus of this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SCSI command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT and WP: NOTTEXTBOOK. I also can't find any sources that would make the article read like an encyclopedia page, as opposed to technical documentation.

There was an AfD for this article in 2005, that ended with a result of No Consensus. Nearly every Keep vote in that AfD reads like an example from WP: ATA. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's an overview, no manual or textbook. Could be improved, of course. --Zac67 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously telling me that a bloated 191-line entry table of codes is an "overview"? This is a glorified manual. I also don't understand your handwaving about how the article "could be improved", given that there is a dearth of sources about this subject that could be used to make this article encyclopedic. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to SCSI#SCSI command protocol. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can support this AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leya Kırşan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two blue-linked items that she was in, one article had just a list item and one didn't even mention her. Of the 5 references, one just had he age, for two there was nothing there (404) and two just listed a few IMDB type factoids. Previously tagged for WP:Notability by a different NPP reviewer. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the corresponding article in Turkish, you can see that she's in the main cast of various notable productions. I don't have time to improve this right now but maybe Draftify or Redirect to Payitaht:_Abdülhamid#Season_2_2 (mentioned there) and interested users can expand either the draft or the page by reverting the R when they're confident they have enough. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands at the 2024 World Aquatics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Basically the whole article is to say that they entered one person in that event and they lost. No GNG sources, just one database type source for that factoid. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Qatar, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This type of article/list has very little potential for growrth, and is at best appropriate for an overview along the lines of Solomon Islands at the World Aquatics Championships. It doesn't exist, so a merge isn't possible at the time. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Appears to be some type of award but there are no sources which really cover it much less GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Dance, and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for historic reasons. There are plenty of notable people from Nepal who were recognized after getting this award. It has been stopped because of royal name attached to it after Nepal entered into the republic era. Plenty of sources are available if you search in native language (i.e. Nepali - इन्द्रराज्यलक्ष्मी प्रज्ञा–पुरस्कार) nirmal (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polideportivo Municipal de Manises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia is not a list of every structure to have ever existed. Stadiums are split off from clubs/cities when they are subjects of discussion as primary theme. "Stadium" with 1,000 capacity in town of 30,000; many American high schools probably have bigger facilities. Team has played one season ever in a national (regionally divided) league, in 1956-57. Not sure whether there is anything at all to salvage and whether that goes to the town or the team. Not even the biggest enthusiast of stadiums in Spain has written about this [38] Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Manises as possible search term. GiantSnowman 18:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tirana teen stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst tragic, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Schools, and Albania. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why? it is informative. Lightnightx3x (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something to exist on Wikipedia it has to meet the notability guidelines. Single incidents like this typically don't as they don't have long-lasting coverage in reliable sources. CoconutOctopus talk 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I's still a tragic event and people deserve to know what happened. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep it; see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. CoconutOctopus talk 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many incidents like this have had limited coverage and still have a Wikipedia article. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm sorry a youngster died, but realistically in many parts of the world, a knife fight between kids with a fatality isn't noteworthy, it's just Tuesday. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep An article can't be deleted just because some people think it's an ordinary thing to happen. The topic is much deeper than that. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This event has received significant coverage in Albania. The media is continuously addressing this topic. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep- I believe this article should be kept. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  You are only supposed to !vote once. Please remove your additional "keep" bold-text. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is also worth mentioning the reaction of the public opinion. This event has had a much broader impact than initially expected. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt WP:NOTNEWS applies but this page also has some significant violations of WP:BLPCRIME - I deleted a sentence identifying a juvenile who has not stood trial as "the killer". There are additional issues with the assumption of guilt in article copy that are still problematic though less egregious. Beyond these problems there is no indication that this is anything other than a very unfortunate crime - there's nothing encyclopedically relevant about those. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whether it is a remarkable event or not, it is too early to tell. Deletion and if the event proves to be significant it can be rewritten. Why such a hurry? LefterDalaka (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is already significant. It has caused a lot of concern and has been subjected to a lot of media coverage. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most crimes are non-notable even if they cause an immediate sensation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This crime has caused an immediate reaction and widespread shock, showing that it is notable Lightnightx3x (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also it shows that it is notable because of the media significantly covering it. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it does not have sufficient notability (such things happen on a daily basis, unfortunately), and as per WP:NOTNEWS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not exactly. You don't see fatalities from stabbing fights in Albania every day. Every major news outlet in Albania is reporting this. I wouldn't have made this article if this would be an ordinary thing to happen. You don't see this every day. Also, I don't mean to violate WP:NOTNEWS. It was something shocking. School fights can happen every day, even with knives, but not with a fatality and such a big reaction. Lightnightx3x (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just an FYI - replying to every !vote at an AfD is often perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING and is frowned upon. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thanks for informing me. Sorry. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightnightx3x, I appreciate your desire to create new articles. However, you are still new here and have to go through a process of learning and getting experience. When multiple established editors say you are wrong, indeed you are. I would advise you to focus on improving existing articles first, and then as you gain experience, create new ones from scratch. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create this article because I thought a notable event like this deserved to. Thanks for the tips and your patience. Lightnightx3x (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations & Communications Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Also, no WP:RS given. Nxcrypto Message 17:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - no comment on notability but the article looks like it was written by Chat GPT and is very promotional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - AI concerns aside, it's unreferenced, no WP:SIGCOV, and an individual branch of a union isn't really WP:NOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's a certain amount of irony in using AI to create an article focused on journalists, trade unions, and communications. For this I rather applaud the chutzpah of the creator. But, no, agreed with nom - delete. ResonantDis_tortion 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject is a branch/arm/sub-section of the National Union of Journalists and doesn't appear to have any independent notability. Certainly I cannot find any sources to establish notability of the PR department of this union. The other issues (highlighted by the nom and self-evident in the article itself) do very little to help. Guliolopez (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for it to be marked for deletion. These all seem to be legitimate enough issues to take with it. I shall take on board all comments as I develop as a contributor to Wikipedia. Hyperpolymath (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific responses to bits there, in case there needs to be fuller response:

- it was not written by ChatGPT but did ask Llama to restructure the text to meet Wikipedia requirements, then did have to write bits of it again. I just tried using zeroGPT.org to check it does show 'human origin, contributions by ChatGPT', which does reflect this. If that is not the best one or the approved one, it is worth knowing.

- citations? facts checked, but had not yet got round to adding them, I had problems fixing/formatting the 'infobox' (someone helpfully did fix that) that I came back to attend to along with citations just now for. I actually did think that for a 'new page' or 'major edit' there was a delay before going live.

- promotional sounding? I will accept the judgement of others, but the purpose was to highlight points of note, which builds the case for notability.

- the point about the branch/arm/subsection of the NUJ is legitimate [it is not actually a department but a member function that is federated into the NUJ - BUT it is dependent in status]. The reason for separating it out is because the NUJ title does not make explicit that PR and Comms practitioners are able to be admitted to membership or are through it represented and there is no other 'independent' trade union of the UK/Ireland that covers PR and Comms as a specific entity.

NOTE: This is to address above points, not to fight for to exist as an independent page/entity. I think that criticism is legitimate, the feedback is useful, and I put up no contest for its continued existence. Hyperpolymath (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP: TNT and WP:NOT. In 2007, you could jump right in and make mistakes like this, you didn’t know, no harm. In 2024, arguments that the creator didn’t know how to write an article or doesn’t know what we are, are untenable. Bearian (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I understand. Thank you for explaining, and I accept that as appropriate (I slightly disagree, but overwhelmingly it is a consensus, so I defer to you).

  Given that decision, what does it mean? Am I forbidden from making further submissions - is there a strike system? Is there a remedial thing I can do to focus on this, or is it only the general documentation. And you have said 'delete it' - is that an instruction to me to do, or will you do that?

  If I am still allowed to contribute, I will make my way through all the learning materials online on the site that I can find that are relevant. But please let me know - if I need to delete it (or you will), and if I am not allowed to contribute (or what my current status is)? Thank you. Hyperpolymath (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are absolutely still allowed to contribute, and in fact are encouraged to do so! I will post shortly on your talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nomination, the comments, and the fact that AI generated text usually contains OR and it is hard to distinguish hallucinatory text from factual information, especially for the average WP reader.Plasticwonder (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudamini Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacking WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Nxcrypto Message 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- she has been featured on reliable sources. Like

https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/beauty-and-brains-as-never-seen-before-in-the-genius-of-the-bestselling-autho r-and-artist-saudamini-mishra-aka-dhi-who-has-mastered-her-art-and-the-selling-of-it-to-change-lives-121030901304_1.html and https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/saudamini-mishra-changing-lives-with-the-most-intellectual-stories-1201118011 79_1.html and https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/author-saudamini-mishra-releases-her-fifth-bestselling-book-dhi-s-law-of-nine-archety pes-of-dhi-s-transformation-series-1985264-2022-08-08 and https://thedailyguardian.com/i-wanted-lives-to-be-changed-saudamini/ . 3 sourcs is enough for notability.Stromeee (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources don't work (linking errors). You might need to fix them. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no serious third party coverage as far as I can tell.-KH-1 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about the arts in India (outside of pop culture like Bollywood films) is difficult. Bearian (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find any serious sources. Fails GNG as an artist, writer, and (pseudo)scientist Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeriq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is the still an up-and-coming artist who has not been gain significant coverage to warrant a separate article. Some of the sources cited in the article are just press releases, others are unreliable blogs. The only promising source in the article, The Cable Lifestyle, isn't independent of the subject.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The Sun Nigeria is a potentially reliable source, but none of the other references contribute to significant coverage. Maybe just too soon. Bearian (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Shaouni (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A fair quantity of news sources for this event, but the person is otherwise not notable. WP:BLP1E? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. - Donald Albury 22:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Skynxnex (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Feinswog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete – article has no substantive references, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR. He does run https://volleyballmag.com/ which is cited in some 50+ Wikipedia articles, and if that is sufficient for notability, I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can only find one book review for HoopDaddy [39], which isn't enough to pass AUTHOR. Rest of the sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I've added some sources from Newspapers.com, I'll admit they aren't super strong but they were quick to add so it's a weak keep for now. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket balance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This has been sitting here as a largely unsourced original research essay for over 15 years. Since there's been almost zero attempt to rectify this, I think it should just be removed from the enecylopedia. (Perhaps it could be thrown into a draft for someone to work on over the next 15 years) ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has a list of sources at the bottom, might be OR, but it's not unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, and why I said "largely unsourced" - the bulk of the content appears to be unsourced OR. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There may be a list of sources at the bottom, but none of them uses the term "ticket balance" and all are talking about different (but related) things, with this article apparently trying to tie them all together into a coherent concept...textbook WP:OR. This source uses the term "balanced ticket": [40], but I don't know about its reliability. I can find passing uses of the phrase in different non-RS articles (blogs and so forth) but it's not clear that they're talking about the same thing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep – it took me about 15 minutes to find half a dozen good news articles from different presidential election cycles that mention ticket balancing -- I added them all to this article and will continue to add more. The original author may not have cited any sources, but this is not an original research essay. This is a term frequently mentioned in the news every 4 years, with sources dating back to the 1990s and earlier. Scholars also frequently talk about how JFK picked LBJ to balance the ticket and unite the Democratic party, that was in 1960. It will not be hard to find more sources. This nom was lazy. –Aaronw1109 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find and add 18 sources in under half an hour. If anyone would like me to find more, please ask! –Aaronw1109 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps again confirming that unsourced tags are meaningless, but AfDs suddenly get results? Sigh. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added by Aaronw1109 are easily enough to pass the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sal2100. BD2412 T 03:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A mess of WP:SYNTH connecting disparate incidents across centuries. The subject topic itself ("Foreign relations of the Magadhan Empire") has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Bangladesh, and India. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me? The article has sources backing up everything.

  "Connecting disparate incidents", what do even mean by that? Obviously I would check out all the dynasties and not just one single one JingJongPascal (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has proper sources backing everything up.

JingJongPascal (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Coeusin (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Foreign relations of the Mughal Empire also does not have a source saying it's distcintity JingJongPascal (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: @JingJongPascal Its not that even if article is verifiable it be created per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion this whole article can better be a subsection in Magadha article.Nor it has sufficient enough of being standing alone.

Edasf«Talk» 15:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not covered as a distinct topic in sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. All the content, if it is not already there, should go to the individual pages - Nanda, Maurya etc. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nomination. Another example of nationalistic revision of history that is taking place in India and Wikipedia being used for it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Care to provide how this is a "nationalistic revision of History"

  Maybe discuss about the reasons you don't like the articled instead of pointing out my views and ideologies which has nothing to do here?

  WP:PersonalAttack JingJongPascal (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the author addresses the issue of SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dachuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

contested PROD. a female Cornish Dachuna is only known from one singular mention by Hugh Candidus in a list of saints' resting places. i checked the Blair source as i have irl access to it, and the heading is "Summary list of late, non-English, or dubious saints who appear in the resting-place lists". according to Nicholas Orme's Saints of Cornwall,

The reference is presumably to Bodmin Priory, but no evidence survives from there about these saints, apart from Petroc. ... Dachuna is equally elusive in Cornwall, and a similar name in Ireland is male not female. ... In short, there is no certain Cornish context for these names; perhaps Hugh Candidus or his source conflated two places and ascribed saints to Bodmin who rightly belonged elsewhere.

there is no evidence that a female Cornish Dachuna ever existed. she is only known from one very dubious passing mention in a medieval source. fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some of nominator's reasoning/historical commentary is a bit misguided, a lot of prominent subjects rely on a single source, Beowulf for instance is arguably one of those. Whether the saint itself ever existed as a person, who knows, but the cult did; like arguing Zeus didn't exist so the god's article should be deleted. Even the nomination shows that the subject is of scholarly interest. The saint's cult and commemoration are recorded in one of the major sources of information we have for early English saints. The article is a stub and needs more work, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable either. Ironically if the nominator had expended the same energy expanding the article as trying to get it deleted it might not be a stub, some of the info used above could be in the article in expounded form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what i'm saying, and is entirely beside the point. there is nothing to add to this article, and there is no evidence beyond Hugh Candidus' brief mention that she existed and was buried at Bodmin, let alone that she had a cult or commemoration - scholarly sources, including the one you cited in the article, agree on that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what i'm saying I don't know specifically what 'that' means here, but everything I've said addresses the points you've raised. there is nothing to add to this article How do you know what can be added to the article? Your reasoning is misguided, just because there is only one source doesn't mean there is nothing more to be said. It's also clearly wrong as a statement, you could have added the quote above to the article, for instance, instead of using it here. Again, misspent effort. An established, culted medieval saint is intrinsically notable and there will be more scholarship, either material existing but unused or in the future. I find the logic and motivation here alarming, you would clear out so many important articles on Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not an "established, culted medieval saint". that is what the very sparse sourcing says - that this was probably a mistake on Hugh's part. and i know that there is nothing to add because i've looked for good sourcing on this saint, and have come up very short. Dachuna does not even have her own entry in the very, very thorough and authoritative Orme book, nor does she have any dedications, known feast days, or folklore. the only thing we know about this supposed saint is where she was supposedly buried, from one singular passing mention. please do not speculate about my motivations, either. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about. Because a commentator speculates that it might be a mistake by Hugh, that's not the last word, we do not have satisfactory let alone exhaustive source coverage of religion in 12th century Cornwall. Also if you did have any kind of expertise on Insular saints cults you'd know that they frequently spawn dopplegangers, gender changes, etc, etc, doesn't mean they are not notable. St Kentigern of Glasgow was likely a gender change, St Ninian of Whithorn is likely a doppleganger/invention (based on recent scholarship). Also, you've made your motivation clear, you are posting here because you want this deleted, right, what's there for me to 'speculate' about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your WP:THREE best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG? That would help bring this discussion back on track. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hugh Candidus and add mention of these dubious saints there as an AtD. (edit conflict) I concur with Sawyer's assessment here that a full article on an almost certainly non-existent saint should not warrant an article when coverage has been so sparse and exclusively focused on the likely falsity of the original claim. However, saint articles have a tendency to reappear due to the general assumption of notability many editors believe they have. A redirect that indicates the spurious origin may stave off any misguided efforts to revive the page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound patronising, but the source problems here and the historical issues surrounding the evolution of saints cults are very complex. Also, why would you redirect it to Hugh Candidus? Surely if you were going to delete it you'd just redirect it to List of Cornish saints or List of Anglo-Saxon saints?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, as I am a historian. You have managed to be patronizing and seem to be taking this AfD far too personally. Your redirect suggestions are inappropriate targets due to the unlikely historicity and singular reference of this purported saint. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking it personally at all. Why are the redirect suggestions 'inappropriate'? Listen, if you want to call yourself a historian because you did a history degree I'm not going to argue, but my points stands, these issues are specialised and complex, I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important....but unfortunately if you don't recognise it yourself pointing it out any further is likely to be a waste of time on my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - especially if the information from Orme's Saints of Cornwall is added (which it should be). Yes, it's a sparse article, but that's not exactly unusual in medieval subjects. It is a bit of a borderline case, but yes, there does appear enough for me to consider this worth an article. I do not consider Hugh Candidus a good redirect target - that would imply that Hugh had some connection to this purported saint, where he is just the source. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think it might be worth noting that you were canvassed (diff) for participation in this AfD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note my reply at Deacon's talk page - here addressing my knowing about this AfD before Deacon posted on my talk page. (I've long had Deacon's TP watchlisted - you might note the yearly Saturnalia posts that date back many years for him (and most everyone else where I have their userpages watchlisted) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pbritti, you are approaching this the wrong way, we are people with long-established interests in these articles. Ealdgyth isn't going to be 'canvassed' by anyone, let alone me. When I last checked she was one of the main contributors to articles on English Christianity. 10os articles in which she has an interest could be negatively affected by this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism on a relevant article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ealdgyth: Your response is a bit ridiculous when you only !voted here after being canvassed, failed to acknowledge that, and have not !voted in an AfD in over a year (and only five in the last five years). @Deacon of Pndapetzim: you explicitly sought the aid of a friendly editor, which is canvassing. I'll take this up with WP:AN next. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please WP:AGF. I will mention the discussion to anyone I think might be interested, I had no idea if Ealdgyth would agree with me or not, I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you. If I'd wanted to perform some wicked evil conspiracy on you I could have emailed her or lots of other people & you wouldn't have had a clue, seriously get a grip . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• in the interest of fairness, i have added what little is available from Orme's book. i do not have access to the Jankulak book so i have no idea if there's more information in there. i stand by my nomination for deletion, however; i do not believe this is enough for a standalone article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete What's in the article right now really looks like, at best, passing mention in a single book. I would suggest that, unless significant improvement can be made to citation quality, there's not enough here to support a separate article. It's never going to be more than a stub. Suggest merging any relevant information into Saint Petroc. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Petroc seems like a reasonable merge/redirect target to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A single passing mention is not enough to establish notability, despite some votes based on hypotheticals provided above. You don't need to be a historian, despite what one user claims, to realize that a lack of sources is worth considering. I do not have any objection to a redirect given the provided context. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per ATD, but not to Candidus or S. Petroc—where it would be UNDUE to contain what we have on a discrete saint, but rather to List of Anglo-Saxon saints, where Dachuna already has a slot. A list also created by The Historian™, so please present your diplomas on the door before commenting  :) SerialNumber54129 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  didn't realize she already was listed there; i've been working on sorting out the Cornish saints topic, not A-S saints, so i hadn't noticed. i concur that that's probably the best redirect target ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Serial Number 54129 has raised a good question about whether Dachuna's origin there should be "British", "Anglo-Saxon", or "Saxon", which the learned historians here may be interested in weighing in on. CMD (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  it is a good question, and as a not-learned not-historian i have some nonsense to contribute. Orme says Dachuna's name, unique in Cornwall/England, is similar to some saints found in Ireland, but that connection may be purely superficial. as she's just a (dubious) name in a list, it's not clear whether she would have been Cornish (Celtic-speaking) or Anglo-Saxon. "British" would probably be the least OR-y. at the same time, whether the A-S saints list should only include standalone articles is another question - i'd probably say yes, but i don't plan on working on that list for the time being and it's a bit out of scope of this AfD. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sawyer777:, I apologize for picking on your redirect suggestion! Was not meant to be a personal criticism at all. Sorry! SerialNumber54129 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  oh that's not at all how i read it! you're so good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect but to a different target than suggested thus far: St Petroc's Church, Bodmin. Every secondary source on Dachuna refers only to Candidus' passing mention, so the only thing we can verify about her(?) is that she was said by Candidus to be buried at Bodmin Priory, where she was an associate of Petroc. I've added a line and reference about Credan, Medan and Dachuna on my proposed target, so it's a suitable redirect. This avoids the WP:UNDUE problems of redirecting to Candidus or Petroc and the identification problems of placing a Cornish saint on a list of Anglo-Saxons. Regardless of where it's redirected, there's no plausible grounds to keep this as a standalone page. The sourcing would indicate "delete," but I think Pbritti is right that a redirect would help guard against well-intentioned efforts to recreate the page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i wasn't expecting such lively (can you call it lively?) debate about where to redirect this. i think you make the best case so far. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ealdgyth and noting that inclusion on the Candidus list is itself adequately notable. The article itself explains the limitations of the source material. For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. We also don’t seem to have anything like a “list of Saint’s resting places” on Wiki, which would actually be a somewhat plausible redirect to move the contents for stubs like this, but given we don’t, the content itself is worth preserving. Also must note we have already spent more bandwidth discussing this RfD than it is taking up on “teh wiki”. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. that's just... not true at all. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Oliva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources I could find about him are tied to the FSF, GNU, or make passing mentions of his name in routine coverage that is almost entirely about Linux-libre. Since notability is not transitive, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was dePRODed on the basis that he received a "prestigious award". This "prestigious award" is given by the FSF, which is an organization that the article and the PROD rationale makes very clear that he is a part of. Regardless, this was dePRODed without the addition of independent sources, so this goes to AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nothing for this person found, there is an author Alexandra Oliva, which isn't this person. I don't see any acceptable sources used either, as the nom explains. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Oliva clearly meets items 1. and 2. of WP:ANYBIO ("has received a well-known and significant award" plus "has made a widely recognized contribution ... in a specific field"). The fact that he is part of the Free Software movement does not diminish the merit of his award in any way. It just stands as proof that his life-long contributions were acknowledged by his peers.

He is cited as reference or acknowledged in several books in a period spanning almost three decades:

• Fourth International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems - Proceedings, by IEEE Computer Society (1998)
• The International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, by Mohamed G. Gouda (1999)
• Unix backup and recovery, by W. Curtis Preston (1999)
• Windows to Linux Migration Toolkit - Your Windows to Linux Extreme Makeover, by David Allen (2004)
• Backup & Recovery - Inexpensive Backup Solutions for Open Systems, by W. Curtis Preston (2007)
• Actor-network Theory and Technology Innovation - Advancements and New Concepts, by Arthur Tatnall (2011)
• Cybersecurity - A Self-Teaching Introduction, by C. P. Gupta, K. K. Goyal (2020)
• Coding Democracy - How Hackers Are Disrupting Power, Surveillance, and Authoritarianism, by Maureen Webb (2021)
• A Propriedade Intelectual do Software - análise histórica e crítica, by Rodrigo L Canalli (2021)
• Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), by Yash Pratap Singh Narwaria, Dr. Maulik K Rathod, Anindita Dutta Roy, Tanmay Agrawal (2024)

He was one of the co-founders of Free Software Foundation Latin America [41] in 2005, and still is one of its board members [42]. As a promoter of free software, he has given dozens of lectures in Brazil (this governamental site lists just a few) and abroad. —capmo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgements or mentions in books are not a measure of notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Do not throw random citations and random lectures at us and hope that one or two of them sticks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The award that you keep citing is tied to an organization Oliva is actively part of—it is not an independent honor and does not count at all towards notability. His membership in the Free Software movement does not establish notability either, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown absolutely nothing to demonstrate that WP: ANYBIO is met, but even if you did, the guideline very clearly states that "meeting one or more [of the standards] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Show me significant coverage from sources that meet WP: RS, or this content doesn’t belong here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Oliva also meets item 3. of WP:ANYBIO, having an entry at the National Library of Brazil [43]. —capmo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quit bludgeoning. This is not a "standard national biographical dictionary". It's a database of authors (who might have authored books that are preserved in the National Library?). Either way, it's certainly not biographical, because the page only contains the title of one work, and it's certainly not standard. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, please come back to us with reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Or don't. You seem to be ignoring this request (or anything I have to say, for that matter), so I don't really know why I'm still entertaining any of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided is from the Brazilian National Authority Control, maintained by the National Library (Biblioteca Nacional, the bn in the link). Even the entry on Machado de Assis, one of Brazilian greatest writers, returns just a couple of lines [44]. What I'm trying to say with this is that in this case, length is no parameter for the subject's importance. Being in the list is enough proof of notability. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill activist, writer, and graduate student . Bearian (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Made up in one day award? This is ridiculous! It's the FSF Free Software Awards! Dozens of people and organizations (including Wikipedia itself, what an irony!) have been granted it. Are you going to propose the deletion of their articles too? —capmo (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This has been explained over and over again, in the PROD, AfD rationale, and multiple delete votes: the FSF award doesn’t establish notability because it’s from an organization that the subject is a board member of. Your behavior is rapidly devolving into bludgeoning. I'm asking you kindly to WP: LISTEN to us or let the discussion move forward. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're falsifying the facts to reinforce your arguments. He received his award in 2016; he only became a board member of FSF in 2019! I'll quote below a paragraph from the announcement so you can get your facts straight:

  A longtime free software activist and founder of FSF Latin America, Oliva brings decades of experience in the free software movement to the FSF board. In the community, he is held in especially high regard for being the chief developer of the GNU Linux-libre project, a version of the kernel Linux that removes all nonfree bits from the kernel's source code, enabling users around the world to run fully free versions of the GNU/Linux operating system, and is a program of vital importance in the cause for software freedom. For his deep commitment and tireless work in free software, Oliva was the recipient of the 2016 Advancement of Free Software award given annually by the FSF. Aside from being a contributor to the GNU Project since 1993, Oliva is an accomplished public speaker and author on the importance of software freedom.

  I really don't see the purpose in deleting an article on someone that's clearly notable in his field. You ask me to "listen" to you, but you don't seem to be willing to do the same. Please do what you kindly suggested me and just let the discussion move forward. We already know your opinion, let's hear from others, please. —capmo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, and the very first sentence of your quote says that he founded FSF Latin America, which existed all the way back in 2005 (cite). He was affiliated with the FSF when he received the award, so the award does not count towards notability and the article should be deleted. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and by the way, accusing someone of "falsifying facts" because they disagree with you isn't funny. I was hoping you'd be willing to discuss this civilly, but those hopes seem misplaced. I'm telling you now, drop the stick. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FOURTEEN EDITS in a row? Have you ever heard of the Preview buttom?? ;) You seem to be taking this too seriously, try to relax a bit! Now regarding your other question: FSF and FSFLA are "sister" organizations, completely independent from one another. Again you were proven wrong in your assumption. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's not how this works. You don't get to accuse people of acting in bad faith and then pretend like you did nothing wrong by telling them to "relax" with a winky face. This page with FSFLA's constitution says that they "act in joint concert with the other FSFs (Free Software Foundations) to promote and defend Free Software". They're not independent. Again, thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The whole article is originally researched and violates MOS:TERRORIST. The sources are not conclusive about whether any of these events can be designated as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Terrorism, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no originally research here nor MOS:TERRORIST violation. In fact, there are no resources in this article and barely any explanation besides "North Macedonia is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe. It shares land borders with Kosovo to the northwest, Serbia to the north, Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south, and Albania to the west. Below is an incomplete list of terrorist incidents that occurred in North Macedonia" and a list of Wikipedia topics of attacks and conflicts. IdanST (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the originally researched part. There are no reliable sources that classify these incidents as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are listed in their respective Wikipedia articles, and from an initial review and checking some, they appear to be reliable. IdanST (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited those articles. Articles themselves are not considered reliable. List articles are also subject to WP:V, so citing sources is required on such articles too.

Even if we go by the articles, we'll see that on its respective article, the 2001 insurgency is not classified as a terrorist incident. Neither are the Vejce massacre, Kondovo crisis and the 2014 government attack (unresolved case), nor have I encountered sources who classify them as such. The attack at Gošince has been classified as such by the government but the case is unresolved. The Smilkovci Lake killings have also been classified as such by the government and some experts (before the convictions), and there were also terrorism convictions. The Kumanovo clashes have also been classified as such by the government and there were terrorism convictions. All three occurred when there were ethnic tensions and a political crisis, so their status is controversial. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's WP:V violation. I've added RS to all listed attacks. However, I don't know how 2001 insurgency in Macedonia is related to this list. IdanST (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donevan Chew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pretty obvious promotional article with sentences that could only be written by the article subject or someone they paid to write about them "more importantly, is the owner of four pika Chews (three sons, one daughter)". The only reference is an 3-sentence official blurb, probably also publicist-written. He won a Clio Award, but I am skeptical of that being a real claim of notability. It looks like there were 1,215 Clio Awards given in that year alone. Here2rewrite (talk)

• Delete: Seems to be a marketing exec, so sourcing I find is all PR-ish items [45]. Not sure what a pika is, his children? Regardless, delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. It’s difficult to take this seriously when the lead talks about his hair. No reliable sources, no article. Bearian (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not meeting WP ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?

The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.

"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subsections all can be under controversy, A bio is not notable just for 1 event hence fail WP:Bio, You might choose to add any notable things he has done in the future. Tesleemah (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added more information. Intlctzn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator for this deletion quotes WP:POLITICIAN to delete this article but per aforesaid guidelines, politicians who have held office^[1] or received significant press coverage (as politician^[2][3] / business head^[4]) are considered notable. Main article's political career section seems to fulfill this criteria.

(if) other concerns on quality of article can however be raised on main article page and improvements invited, this should not warrant a deletion though Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have deleted, in the past 10 years, thousands of articles about diplomats, political party officials, losing candidates, and activists, up to and including candidates for the United States Senate, for lack of significant coverage. Only members of parliament or the equivalent are automatically included here: not political party officials. It’s about as strong a consensus as you can imagine on Wikipedia. If you haven’t ever read Wikipedia, you might not know that, but that’s not our problem, because in 2024 everybody knows that. We are not Ballotpedia or Truth Social. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapsody Overture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - As mentioned in the previous AfD, the album appeared on various European charts and search results at Google Books indicate some notability. They could be called passing mentions: [46], [47], [48], [49]. But there are "snippet views" from DRUM magazine, The Big Issue, Paris Match, Tjednik (Croatian magazine) that are not fully viewable, and could be significant coverage. I think this is very likely a notable subject and sources are just locked in physical media. If the article is decided to be deleted, as an alternative to deletion a redirect to Prince Igor (song) would be appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NALBUM. Sources presented aren't convincing. I can't find the substantial coverage required. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seongju Oh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete – article has no substantive references, and it looks a bit as though it is derived largely from what is on the official website (https://seongjuoh.com/biography/). I have not been able to find, during WP:BEFORE, decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC – N.B. he has been a member of two notable ensembles, but I am not sure that he would class as a "reasonably prominent" member. There are a lot of listings type sources, but I could find nothing like critical reviews of the his performances or compositions. It is possible that god sources in German or Korean exist, in which case I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphis neeladriensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Species sourced only sourced to predatory journals. Catalogue of Life just repeats the original source, doesn't evaluate scientific validity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoL recognises the species because it is recognised by Species Fungorium/Index Fungorium (hosted at Kew Gardens). It's also recognised by Mycobank. Both are curated, although they may not check if the journal is predatory. These are the usual sources used for fungi species so should we second guess them?  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're curated in that they verify that a name appeared in a publication somewhere. Not that the species is valid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. WP:NSPECIES says Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. (my bold). This species does not appear to have that with the predatory journal issue, so normally I would say delete. What Jts1882 mentions is what brings me just over the threshold though. Are there enough secondary sources checking this that aren't just indiscriminate databases? It seems that way based on Jts' description since societies, etc. usually have some checks in place even if they aren't doing a full-scale secondary verification. If it's more of a rubber stamp though that just repeats anything, then I'd be more likely to drift back towards delete. KoA (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. Both those databases have listed curators working for reputable academic institutions. I consider them reliable sources for fungi. One problem is that the taxonomic codes don't have provisions to exclude validly published names based on the type of journal, e.g. predatory or self-published (which have recently caused havoc for herpetologists).

What is the Wikipedia policy on predatory journals? Is it a ban or a use with caution warning. If the latter, then I think we have reliable sources to back up the species.  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is that unreliable journals are unreliable and not to be relied on, like any other unreliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why the journal here wouldn't qualify for the WP:NSPECIES requirement (now officially a guideline btw). Thanks for posting to Wikiproject Fungi. Hopefully more folks familiar with those orgs can chime in, but I'm drifting more towards delete until secondary sources cite the paper uncritically. KoA (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is the primary source that is considered unreliable, but the secondary sources (curated databases) accept the taxa. How is rejecting such secondary sources not some sort of secondary research (i.e. overriding the conclusions of the secondary sources). —  Jts1882 | talk  20:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The honest question I have as an entomologist and not a fungi expert is if these databases are truly reliable secondary sources for this particular purpose. If it was merely a matter of those databases reflecting that the species description has been published in any journal, then that's not quite enough for us here. If there's even a bit of validation where an expert is checking the description/paper itself and saying "Yeah, it looks like a good description." I'd say that would be just enough. KoA (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried to do a little more digging today. There are a few papers citing the initial description of Mohabe et al. 2016, but they're almost all from the original lead author. Only these two are independent articles citing it.[50][51] The first source only says it looked at long list of sources to construct phyolgenetic trees including that one, but nothing else is said about the source or this species. In the second, this all is all that is said (about a different species Graphis plumieae, No further reference to this obviously rare species aside the original description from Guadeloupe could be found in the literature until recently when it was found in India (Mohabe et al. 2016) and in Portugal (Lepista & Aptroot 2016).

At the least, the paper is being cited uncritically by other independent peer-reviewed sources, so that can just eek this AfD over to keep for me without the question of databases, though I would have preferred to see the sources at least briefly mentioning Graphis neeladriensis for it to be a more solid keep. KoA (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (2024 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM; created by an account representing the film's production company Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This film does not pass notability guidelines as its citation are primary sources. Searching for sources is difficult because the title of the film is similar to other very notable subjects. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The film looks great and the poster is impressive, but there's just no coverage for the film. Most student and/or short films tend to fly under the radar, this is no exception. I hope that everyone involved goes on to great things and that we can eventually create articles for them, but right now the movie just isn't notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

this discussion in rfd was closed as restore, when it should have been closed as restore and send to afd. same rationale applies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Šembera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable sportsperson. The sources describe his accident, which left him paralyzed at the age of 16, and how he lives with the consequences, but do not document any achievements or any other reason for having an encyclopedia entry. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there appears to be sources but many are in foreign language and failed to translate properly for assessment. Those familiar with the language may search for sources. Mekomo (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Šembera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I did not find any good sources to verify that he meets the WP:GNG criteria. The only external link does not work. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:FRINGE. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t publish these sorts of stories. Bearian (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per non. However, the "Jerusalem UFO Hoax" seems possibly notable, with widespread reliable coverage. However, very little coverage mentions Cohen with regards to that sighting, and fails BLP1E. TiggerJay (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summers Vitus Nwokie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draftification without improvements, so here we are. Fails WP:NBIO. Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Concerns of undisclosed paid editing aside (see: File:Summers Vitus Nwokie.jpg), there are no sources to establish the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the other two sources being fluff, a single reliable source in a local newspaper isn’t enough for notability. Bearian (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This doesn't meet GNG. I tried searching online for some sources, nothing reliable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Nakao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Playing 1 cup game for a J League team is a weak claim to notability. Sources in ja:wiki are either primary or match reports, none are in-depth. As such he fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dečan operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The entire section on the operation itself is unsourced, and it has 0 information on the actual operation, only explaining the lay-out of the operation and that the KLA were entrenched. The sources only mention the casualties and are not in-depth. The article is also not writen from a neutral prespective with it refering to the KLA as "terrorists" and using serbian letters for Albanian names like Hashim Thaçi. This article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Magadha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Unnecessary," "not big enough to have a separate list," or "looks like Original Synthesis"? Under what context are you nominating and proposing a discussion for this article? It seems like the nomination is based on your personal viewpoint rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to provide sufficient evidence to justify taking an article to deletion discussion. Personal opinions should not be the basis for judging an article; any proposal for deletion must be grounded in WP:DEL. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India original synthesis is a part of WP guidelines read guidelines correctly first. Edasf (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short List of Wars involving India quite enough by going this we need to create a dozen articles like this. Edasf (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe step back a little bit now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Edasf (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a wrong understanding of what "Original Synthesis" is! As long as you are not adding unsourced interpretations or inferences to the data like claiming something that is not directly supported by the sources, this type of comparison is within the acceptable range of Wikipedia's guidelines and does not violate the original synthesis rule. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The references offer substantial and reliable academic coverage of Magadha’s historical conflicts, indicating the wars' historical significance. Passes WP:SAL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion Edasf (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Edasf "why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India"–Both articles deal with wars in India over time, but they focus on different scopes. The two articles are not the same in content, although they partially overlap when discussing ancient history/war. The article in question is a specific subset of the India article, focused on a particular kingdom during a particular period in Indian history and India article is much broader in scope involving all territories that eventually became modern India, including the broader Indian subcontinent (modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other regions), covering a wider range of periods, regions, dynasties and also, the British colonial period, post-independence India, and modern conflicts. That's said, this article is not "Unnecessary". — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your points arent accurate there are other kingdoms who had different wars we some even more than Magadha, we wont make article for each. Edasf«Talk» 14:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's your opinion, but it’s not reflective of Wikipedia’s policies. There are no restrictions on creating articles as long as they meet the established criteria. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Meeting critrea doesnt guarantee article like WP:Verifiability#Verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion Edasf«Talk» 15:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the answer to this circles back to what I’ve already mentioned about why this article isn’t “unnecessary.” And also, your concern about "there aren't that much wars" being mentioned multiple times is irrational. Articles, whether they’re lists, stubs, or have limited content, shouldn’t be proposed for deletion simply because they’re short, WP:TOOSHORT. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How? Why isnt? Its to you to prove conclusively this article is necessary to me and even two other editors India one is quit fine and this isn't necessary to have an specific article for a single kingdom and just ignoring others. Edasf«Talk» 15:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What an immature argument to make! This is a discussion, and reviewers are entitled to form their own opinions and vote accordingly. My vote is to keep, and I’ll stand by it unless you can provide a solid, rational reason for why this article should be deleted. Just because you and other editors share the same opinion doesn’t mean I’m obligated to agree or consider it valid without proper justification. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not forcing you well.Take example of Macedon there were atleast 20 wars involving it will you come create another article? Such types of articles are generally for present entities. Edasf«Talk» 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not familiar with Macedon or its wars, but relating that to the article in question, to support your argument that such articles shouldn’t be created is weak and all the questions about "Why should this be kept?" have already been answered, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself on that. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again and do you have source which states a synthesis between these? This article is an Original synthesis part of WP:OR Edasf«Talk» 16:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t wish to continue the discussion, as it keeps circling back to the same point "OR". About the references, it's quite extensive, and my apologies, but I can’t go into all the details right now, it would take more time to elaborate that here. The references listed in the article could be considered. Additionally, I’m just pointing out some similar articles to show that your proposal, claiming "such articles should not exist separately," is not valid. These examples are only meant to challenge the subjective reasoning behind your suggestion and are not relevant to evaluating the article based on the guidelines. List of wars and battles involving the Principality of Smolensk, List of wars involving the Principality of Tver, List of wars involving the Principality of Moscow, List of wars and battles involving Galicia–Volhynia, List of wars involving Kievan Rus', List of wars involving the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, List of wars involving the Inca Empire, List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, List of battles involving the Sikh Empire.— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again I won't repeat myself points. Edasf«Talk» 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dont compare medieval empires here Edasf«Talk» 09:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  why not? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because List of wars involving India is enough. Orientls (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @JingJongPascal. On an additional note, the article seems to be extremely well-made and kept, and seems to be extremely useful. Also @JingJongPascal, you do not need to provide citations on the article, simply providing a link to battle/war would be enough. In case, a separate article for a particular battle/war doesn't exist, then you shoulda adad a citation. PadFoot (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. It would be good to see more policy-based argumentation referencing, for example, WP:LISTN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article appears well-sourced and in my opinion it meets the criteria of WP:LISTN. It mentions several notable wars, all of which are suitably linked (per PadFoot's argument). I see no reason to redirect it to List of wars involving India because this entry is significant enough to stand on its own.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Add content from here to the articles on the individual polities. At the very least the Gupta Empire should be removed. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hirst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete – I suggest that the subject is not notable - my WP:BEFORE searches turned up nothing of substance, no reliable secondary sources with significant coverage.  SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Music, Television, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no indication of notability from Google search results. Article has been unsourced since 2006 when it was created. This photoman fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Being the "un-named photographer" doesn't meet ACTOR. The rest seems like a resume/CV. I don't see anything about this individual online. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Found pretty much nothing online or through ProQuest. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete – completely unsourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete – I agree with Bearian. Headhitter (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Unable to find any reliable sources after extensive searching using Google newspapers and Google books. I've searched with the full name plus various keywords, such as: "photographer"; "photojournalist"; even "camera". Also searched for the full name with the film title: "Call Me a Cabbie", all to no avail. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Unsourced not-notable BLP. Did not find any mentions of the film "Kate Middleton and the Media" by reliable sources. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 08:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly non-notable, no mention on Newspapers.com. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in NJPW born outside Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence that this grouping of characteristics meets WP:LISTN and has received significant attention as a group. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Looking at the article, I find it relevant to the reader. Additional references will need to be added. ChuyCastañeda (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [52], and some analysis here [53] and here [54]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This also seems to be a RS [55], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:

• Dánta Póca [56][57]
• Ó Chréanna Eile / From Other Earths [58][59]

And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):

• Ar Thóir Gach Ní [60]
• Cnámha Scoilte / Split Bones [61]

I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable mobile game. Sourcing about the game itself leans heavily to primary sources, low-quality secondary blog coverage or user-generated social media and influencer youtube videos. The more reliable coverage about SpinX and their business activities, such as from GameDeveloper, Nikkei, or Reuters, barely mentions Jackpot World. May be one to consider framing as notability for a WP:CORP and not for the game itself. I accept the game itself is quite popular but there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage on it from what I can see. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Netmarble. Agree with nom that Jackpot World is poorly covered in RS, failing WP:GNG. Developer is covered, although questionably well enough for an WP:NCORP pass, but in any case doesn't have an article, so redirect to parent company of developer. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A quick look shows that the Netmarble article doesn't mention SpinX, but it easily could: [62] [63] [64] [65] ~ A412 ^talk! 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems appropriate to me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your suggestions. After careful consideration, I also agree that "Redirect to Netmarble" makes more sense. JulieBole (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've played this game for years and I think it should be kept. It was released by the publisher before it was acquired. 42.200.218.17 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your thoughts. You might like to put 'keep' in bold at the front of your message to better signal your vote on the deletion discussion. It isn't necessary but can help to provide a policy reason why you vote one way or another in a deletion discussion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

  If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

  As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:

  "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

  I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well, Gscholar has hits on this organization as late as 2018, so there is sustained coverage, there also seems to be an offshoot in Scotland... We have sustained coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Movement for Socialism (Britain). Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. I am re-writing the article. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. There's quite a lot of scholarly publications on this group.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to analyse the changes added after the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there is WP:SIGCOV based on the work and sources brought in by 4meter4. It passes notability. Mekomo (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Possibly List of Holocaust memorials and museums § United Kingdom could be expanded into a full article along the lines of List of Holocaust memorials and museums in the United States, as there are 156 search results for "Holocaust" in the Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register. The contents of this page could then be a section there. Ham II (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This particular Stolperstein is unique because it is the only one in the United Kingdom. This has made this particular one the subject of signifcant coverage, and has also made it the site of activist activities which get in the news such as [66], [67] Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I agree with 4meter4 on this. There is coverage, so we can have an article. The fact there are a lot of Stolpersteine elsewhere doesn't matter. This is the English Wikipedia so we are allowed to focus extra attention on things of especial relevance to those living in English-speaking countries, of which the UK is one. The first-and-only Stolpersteine on UK soil has very high cultural significance. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends (Cricket) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable cricket tournament trying to use WP:NOTINHERITED to assert a notability. Just because a number of notable former players competed at this event, it doesn't mean the event itself is notable, and the coverage for the event does not pass WP:GNG. We have deleted many similar non-notable "legends/masters" event articles like this in the past. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and England. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: It's the same page that was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends, now under a new title. Both titles should be salted as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. It is different from the previous page and this is a notable tournament approved by England and Wales Cricket Board. I invite Red_Phoenix to share the views here as i can saw their contribution on the page earlier.Shawshank123 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the same tournament that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championship of Legends (although that was an AFD with minimal participation). Please provide evidence that it passes WP:GNG rather than just stating that it's notable- most of the sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The most I can say is I declined the speedy deletion request as being dissimilar to the linked previous deletion request, which was not to the link that Joseph2302 put above but instead to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Legends Cricket Trophy. Knowing about the other discussion now, I probably would have still recommended AFD just because of the minimal participation and the recreation that indicates someone else disagrees (this is a “spirit of the policy” interpretation rather than a letter of the policy one), but I make no opinion on how noteworthy the event itself actually is. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I made a mistake on the G4 nomination, sorry. But agree that a second AFD is more sensible than speedy deletion, as the 1st AFD had limited participation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Yet another recreation of this article, which has been deleted several times under various titles. Fails WP:GNG, absolutely zero notability. AA (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Palmer (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only single source cited. Absolutiva (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nomination rationale. Google search result provides no indication of notability of this actor. He fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NJPW female wrestlers born outside Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence that this meets WP:LISTN, a trivial grouping of characteristics Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since this is a list of 48 female wrestlers, I think it would be best to change the alphabetical format of the list to a table, and also add additional sources. Maybe when there are 90 or 100, the alphabetical format would make sense. Nikotaku (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a very arbitrary set of criteria. Not sure why this exists. — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:NLIST. It is just another WP:FAN article/list. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Milano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this young rugby player. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DWLC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move DWLC-AM to this title, and delete the redirect DWLC-TV which has no mention at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Shhhnotsoloud. BD2412 T 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYKC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move DYKC-AM to this title and delete redirect DYKC-TV which has no mention at target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Shhhnotsoloud. BD2412 T 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYNU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYNU-FM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two entries. Redirect to DYNU-FM and use hatnote {{redirect|DYNU|the TV station|UNTV}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and hatnote per Shhhnotsoloud. BD2412 T 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Cave (Gibraltar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect toGibraltar Nature Reserve where it is located. Not indepentely notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge absent sources being found (did a light check) into Mediterranean Steps or Gibraltar Nature Reserve -- noting there are many caves listed in List of caves in Gibraltar, so as a whole the caves are probably notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect is fine by me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the content into Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Redirect this page as well, but since this is a disambiguation, perhaps many people would not even use this redirect. Zero Google News results. Less than 110 Google Search results. Google Books turns up some false positives but I suspect only the first link (The Transactions of the Cave Research Group) discusses this Spider Cave in Gibraltar, and even so only mentions it 5 times in the book. So, does not appear to pass WP:GNG, any content can go into Gibraltar Nature Reserve. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tina's Fissure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect or merge to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Not independently notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Very little coverage in sources, does not appear separately notable. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper All's Well Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly nonotable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content and image are worth keeping if minimal; I think these should be merged to some larger article in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the merge target?

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Links in ref's are broken, and all the info is sourced from the one referenced book. That book list many, many caves, and inclusion does not make this one notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See [68] Page 18 and [69] page 276: "a site of major archaeological significance". The cave contained mammoth bones, implements, Neolithic ware and bronze rings from 600 BC. Or possibly redirect to Gorham's Cave. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Second is a clear passing mention, first has some merit. The mere presence of bones doesn't make something notable, and this is passing converage.

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is some confusion with Gorham's Cave. If they are the same, redirect. Otherwise, first ref and existing refs is enough to keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ajf773@LibStar: has good potential to grow per e.g. etwiki list. Some references and info are also added Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. 46 blue links (ie 46 potential entries...) on the Estonian page, that is an indication that should be noted and that is at least promising. And there is also a list dedicated to those of Tallinn only (in Estonian). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and is only manageable because of the country's relatively small size. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.

Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears that the list topic has been discussed as a set in RS. That is all we need to prove WP:NLIST. Further, I don't think this list falls under any of the six criteria of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and those saying it does haven't actually discussed or connected the list to any one of the six standards for making that judgement. It's not a convincing argument as the list has a clearly defined scope that is relevant to the Cinema of Estonia. It's not a simple listing because of the RS coverage, and given that Estonian language films get played pretty much only in theaters in Estonia and the small geographic area its reasonable to list theaters in a single page for topical reasons. It's therefore not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", or a "A resource for conducting business", or a "Genealogical entry", or an "Electronic program guides".4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too small for a whole article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Cinema of Estonia until it is expanded. The references added to the article show it passes WP:NLIST in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. Could use with some expansion though. ExRat (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das verfluchte Jungfernloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe this is notable. It is mentioned as existing in folklore, which it does. However, these references don't feel notable to me. IDK, y'all help me out! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep my German isn't very good, but there's references to this cave in books on a quick Google search and caves have very low notability thresholds. "These references don't feel notable to me" is a bad deletion rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me clarify that. When I did my before search, I could only find sources that resolved to one or two sources. These were fairytales form around 1850-ish. However, there wasn't coverage of the cave. It might be worth having a article on the fairytale, but the current article dosent have adequate sourcing. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi! Can I ask what the reason for this is? I'm happy to fix any issues

  Thanks Ecwdgbt (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: for reason given in nomination. The lack of independent sourcing makes the whole thing read like a press release. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi

  Please could you clarify what you mean by 'lack of independent sourcing'. The majority of the citations are from independent sources including Sky News, The Independent and The Financial Times. Certain points have been substantiated via the company's homepage and their annual report but this has also been done on HomeServe, Legal & General and Admiral Group.

  This is not supposed to act as a press release or as a marketing tool but appreciate your point. Would it benefit from adding in any new sections?

  Thanks in advance for your feedback! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you take a look at the article in the independent, for example - the many, many external links in the article are via Linkby which indicates that Domestic and General are paying for them. Which is why there's so many external links - you wouldn't normally see that many in a newspaper article. It's an advertorial, not independent coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for flagging this. I have removed the independent article as it is not an unbiased, reliable source. Ecwdgbt (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A prior discussion from 2018-9, touching on COI in the instance at the time but also on notability, can be read here. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: This is an odd one: a firm over 100 years old, whose products are used by 1/3 of UK households according to a 2019 Bloomberg item("Abu Dhabi Fund to Buy 30% of Domestic & General Group"), previously a plc but taken private then changing hands several times. But the problem is that despite their name recognition and near-ubiquity in domestic appliance warranty, there's not a lot of coverage outside announcements of the firm changing hands, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am close to saying "But it's notable!" but unless better coverage can be found, would have to say it falls short on WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your feedback!

  Here are three topics aside from the firm taking hands that have led to coverage that I would argue isn't trivial.

  Offices

  https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/domestic--general-hopes-create-5084777

  https://www.standard.co.uk/business/domestic-general-flexible-working-london-hq-revamp-wfh-b942634.html

  https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/big-nottingham-employer-domestic-general-7422086

  Partnerships

  https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-five-year-aftercare-deal-with-marks-electrical/

  https://ertonline.co.uk/news/panasonic-and-dg-sign-a-six-year-deal/

  https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-three-year-deal-with-lg/

  https://ertonline.co.uk/news/hughes-partners-with-domestic-and-general/

  https://retailtimes.co.uk/domestic-general-extends-deal-with-john-lewis/

  Acquisitions

  https://www.cityam.com/american-adventure-continues-for-domestic-general-as-it-makes-second-acquisition/

  https://www.postonline.co.uk/news/7955324/dg-aims-to-create-uber-like-claims-experience

  https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20230629.html

  https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/domestic-general-group-to-acquire-after-inc

  In addition to this, the CEO Matthew Crummack has garnered lots of coverage over the years (see below):

  https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/former-gocompare-ceo-donates-major-sum-create-opportunities-students-need

  https://newsnreleases.com/2021/08/04/matthew-crummack-joins-domestic-general-as-ceo/

  https://www.aston.ac.uk/about/governance-management/matthew-crummack

  https://www.postonline.co.uk/personal/7955323/big-interview-matthew-crummack-domestic-general

  https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/16007578

  Let me know what you think or if the article would benefit from any new sections to showcase its notability?

  Thank you! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the weight to be placed on items about offices, partnerships and acquisitions, see the Standard notices points under WP:CORPTRIV. The City AM piece is bylined, but is ultimately a summary of announcement PR quotes. Coverage about the present CEO is relative to that person more than the company. You ask about what can "showcase" notability; in a way that is indicative of the problem of an article contributed by an editor with connection to the company at present. What is lacking is the longer perspective: substantial coverage about the firm's history. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CORPTRIV is only for routine announcements - some of the coverage goes beyond announcements, or is additional coverage after the coverage of an announcement. Peter James (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

I would argue that Domestic & General is newsworthy in its own right in particular when opening new offices and through its CEO Matthew Crummack. Not in the sense that the business inherits notability through Crummack, but that his decisions for the business are often of note in the media.

It is a global company that employs over 3000 people and partners with hundreds of manufacturers to provide appliance warranty to 1 in 3 homes in the UK. I understand that ubiquity in homes does not necessarily mean 'notability' but I would ask that some of the references sources are revisited as "reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it".

Any articles that have been correctly flagged as being biased have been removed from this draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) — Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It would be helpful if some of these new sources brought to the discussion were assessed to see if they can contribute to establishing some level of notability for this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As AllyD said, it's an odd one. Quick version: the company is of such significance that we owe our readers an article if we can possibly scrape one together, and the sourcing, while not great, is good enough to scrape. Longer version: we're here to provide information, and it's quite reasonable that the more-than-10% of the UK population whose household appliances are insured through D&G might be curious about the company and its history. We couldn't make an article if there was no information about the company, or if we felt there was a significant chance that the information was false (this is the basis for avoiding non-independent sources). But we already apply some nuance there: non-contentious, factual stuff can be sourced from interviews; academics' institutional CVs are assumed to be factually true. In this instance we have useful information, such as the company being founded by the wiki-notable S. W. Copley, and the lineage of the company via various other notable companies. It's unlikely the basic statistics have been falsified. We have a story to tell, the story is not contentious, so the article passes muster - at least in the context of insurance companies, which tend to generate a lot less sourcing than even the most trivial of short-lived pizza outlets. And, frankly, it would look weird and embarrassing if we had nothing to say on the subject of D&G. Elemimele (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as many of the sources cited are primary sources. Ohers that could be reliable failed to provide WP:SIGCOV. This company fails WP:NORG. Mekomo (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage is significant enough - there is also https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/house-garden/household-appliances/domestic-and-general-insurance-repair-b2486660.html. Peter James (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joline Godfrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: The one book review given is fine, there's also a brief review here [70]. Should be able to pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's discussed here also, briefly [71]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passes WP:AUTHOR. I added a couple of additional reviews. Could use a bit of clean up and there are more sources out there. Nnev66 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkTS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sourcing to show that the subject meets WP: GNG. The subject receives in-depth coverage in two papers, published by separate groups of authors at Chinese universities. These papers appeared in ASE 2024, meaning that they are peer-reviewed and thus credible. Here are the papers: [1] [2] I do think this article has several issues, but they can be fixed without deleting the article, so I am inclined to keep it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally linked to the same paper twice. Here is the link to the other paper. Sorry about that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find two independent sources satisfying GNG. User:HyperAccelerated - is that source independent? There's not wide coverage yet, may be WP:TOOSOON. Nothing against draftifying. Widefox; talk 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes -- do you have reason to believe they aren't? One paper is from a team of researchers at Southern University of Science and Technology and another from a team at Beihang University. There isn't anything in the Acknowledgement sections to indicate they got funding from Huawei (who developed ArkTS), and if there was substantial collaboration with Huawei I'd expect someone from Huawei to be on the author list. I suspect there's more coverage in Chinese, but I think that these papers are sufficient to establish notability anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]