Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 28	August 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Fringepedia

AfDs for this article:

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

I was going to BLAR this article to Fringe (TV series), but saw that it was previously kept at AfD (albeit in 2011), so I'm erring on the side of caution. This fan wiki fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. The site lacks sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources. All of the sources were published between 2008 and 2011. Source evaluation:

Ref 1 is a direct link to the site.
Ref 2 states, regarding the wiki, in full: "Meanwhile, fans of the show have set up the mandatory, unofficial databank, Fringepedia. Same rules apply for entries there as with any wiki site."
Ref 3 states, regarding the wiki, in full: "War over edits to Astrid's page: Have an hour or six to waste? You might want to dig into Fringepedia. Take a dip in the pool of collective knowledge. Help figure out what the images that lead into or out of each commercial break denote. Meticulously catalog every narcotic Walter professes to take. Or just spell-check every instance of 'Fibonacci Sequence.' It's fun for everyone."
Ref 4 appears to have a couple of brief mentions of Fringepedia that note that it's a wiki for the show, but without much more than that.

I have been unable to find additional reliable sources providing significant coverage.

Note that I am in the process of creating List of fan wikis (currently a draft in my userspace), but the WP:LISTCRIT is WP:CSC #1 (all entries meet WP:GNG. The intention is to prevent list cruft and an entry for every single fan wiki on Fandom), so merging would not be appropriate. Additionally, I don't think that merging to Fringe (TV series) would be due. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Popular culture, Internet, Websites, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Schiemer

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Renominating as per previous statement: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the supplied sources are not WP:SIGCOV about him LibStar (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Buchanan

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

A recent stub about an engineering company vice president, for a company which does not have Wikipedia article, and that's all it says. I removed unsourced claims about her previous unspecified employment with another company (which does have an article), and the high school she supposedly attended. No in depth coverage of her found, just passing mentions. No apparent notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Note that this article appears to have been created to avoid a red link in a high school article since it was created minutes after the person was added as an alumnus. Not a WP:BLPPROD candidate since her current position is sourced. I'm assuming that a claim of being a vice president is enough of a credible claim of significance to avoid WP:A7. Meters (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability under any possible guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Zindabad

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

Simply fails WP:NFILM, no evidence of notability, no critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Done BEFORE, but found zero sources that can make the subject notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Redirect; it will be okay to do. GrabUp - Talk 04:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Saran, S., Alvi, Ten Years with Guru Dutt: Abrar Alvi's Journey (Penguin, 2008) has a paragraph about the film. Notable cast, director and music director. Anyway a redirect to the director is totally warranted, so very opposed to this being deleted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC) (Given the improvements made to the article, and as I explain below, I must clarify: I am not in favour of a Redirect either and think a plain Keep is the fairest outcome for this type of films, even if the current coverage and state of the page are still very much improvable. The film appears clearly notable in my opinion).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kishore_Kumar_filmography#1946_to_1960. 3 sources on the page. Source 1 only says when the movie was scheduled to be released. Source 2 has nothing on the film. Source 3 has a very brief passing mention about film and not enough to pass notability. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - One source is not enough to keep, but given it is verifiable, a redirect target is appropriate.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope the redirect target were referring to here is the one RangerRus proposed which seems to be a reasonable ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now has way more sources than other film articles from 1959. Most of the film's songs were hits and have relevance till now, which can be seen by a WP:BEFORE search or from the sources I added in the Music section. I believe we have two full-length reviews in major publications, which I have added to the reception section. FWIW, the film and its songs are mentioned in the biographies of Kishore Kumar, Madan Mohan, Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reviewing new changes and sources, I still believe that page fails WP:NFILM. Some sources are unreliable and the others have a very very brief passing mention and some almost look like just entries. Source 1 only says when the movie was scheduled to be released. Source 2 is Google book by unreliable self publication (Hay House) and have very brief passing mention. Source 3 is biography on Kishore Kumar and has passing mention. Source 4 is on biography of Om Prakash and has passing mention. Source 5 (Cinemaazi) is biography on Anoop Kumar Ganguly and is unreliable source where disclaimer clearly mentions that it does not warranty on accuracy and completeness. Source 6 (Bangalore Mirror) is interview with singer Lata Mangeshkar and has passing mention. Source 7 (Seniors Today) is about Lata Mangeshkar and has passing mention and is also unreliable as the site provides senior citizens with health information, practical strategies to improve their physical, mental and emotional well-being. Source 8 (scroll.in) is about Asha Bhonsle and has passing mention. Source 9 (Tribune) is about Kishore Kumar and has passing mention. Source 10 (Gaana.com) has list of songs to listen from the film. Source 11 (Google book) published by unreliable self publishing company, Notion Press, has passing mention. Source 12 (allmusic.com) is list of songs just like source 10 to listen to. Source 13 is Google snippet and impossible to verify the complete page that shows just passing mention. Source 14 is also Google snippet by FilmiIndia who self published using own FilmiIndia Publication company and regardless of self publication, verification of entire page is impossible. Source 15 (Google book) has very brief passing mention. There is not a single full fledged source with indepth coverage on the film. RangersRus (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that assessment was correct (I don't think that what you call passing mentions are all passing mentions, for example), the film would still meet WP:NFILM's inclusionary criteria#2 "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." being a big success (among other things) in the career of (various) (very) notable persons, don't you think? I don't think it is fair to delete or even redirect, to be completely honest, a page with that many mentions (with some including short but significant critical appraisal) in various sources, some being more reliable and/or significant than other, true. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NFILM#2 may apply but that criteria is prefaced with "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" - This does not mean it is automatically notable. It still needs the significant coverage. I would be willing to change my !vote to Keep should someone supply a list of those sources. I currently don't find any. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are reviews such as Film India which although in snippet view is titled as a film review which suggests significant coverage, together with a number of mentions for this 1959 pre-internet film which really needs to be researched offline, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for reasons cited above. It's been decently expanded, good job! :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church

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

No notability or SIGCOV; Wikipedia is not a directory. Article created 12 years ago but the only reference in it is an address database entry. Northern Moonlight 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, note that they were created by the same editor:

I am aware that I’m supposed to put {{afd1}} on top of each article, but given the extraordinary amount of them, I’d like some help. Northern Moonlight 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays all these would not have survived the NPP. So Delete all, whether marked or unmarked by the nominator. --Викидим (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE ALL - ~~All of these are socks created by a now blocked user. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cryx88/Archive.~~ — Maile (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: What do you mean? As far as I can tell, these articles were all created by Cryx88 (who hadn't yet been blocked under any account), so I don't see how sockpuppetry is relevant. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. I'm still for deleting all entries, but for the reason stated in this nomination. These were created from someone using an online data base, setting up individual articles from what amounts to a one-line reference info therein for each individual church. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All 67 articles have now been tagged with {{subst:afd}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Unless these were created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor I don't think any of these should be deleted before there is some evidence of a WP:BEFORE by the nominator or other editors. Also a number of these have an additional reference or two as well as the address database such as the one linked in the previous AfD which was no consensus, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these articles is backed up by independent sourcing. Cortador (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Korea has an independent source and so do others. Anyway what is important is whether independent sources exist not whether they are already used in the articles, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD does not include Presbyterian Church in Korea. Northern Moonlight 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the title is Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo), Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is, at the very most, a single source for a single article, ignoring reliability and independence for a moment. I don't see sufficient independent coverage here. If you believe that other independent and reliable sourcing exists for these articles (all, or nay number, really), you are free to contribute them here. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely not an independent article, it reads like a press release. Викидим (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the nominator to conduct WP:BEFORE on all nominated articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect.~~ The page creator had a track record of creating articles on every single obscure reformed denomination regardless of notability before his block, often using highly unreliable sources. The source used in almost all of these, http://www.reformiert-online.net/, is WP:USERGENERATED ("reformed online does not accept any responsibility for the correctness and completeness of the information."). However, some of what's on it appears to be based on a standard reference work by Bauswein and Vischer, and you can see all these denominations in this AfD listed on pages 297 to 334. So, these denominations exist (or did at one point), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV, in English anyway, beyond a description in Bauswein and Vischer. I recommend redirecting each one that doesn't pass WP:NORG to Presbyterianism in South Korea, which may well be all of them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Some of the denominations might be notable, no bias against re-creation if there are sources beyond reformiert-online. But right now, none of these meet the minimum requirements for sourcing or verifiability; I'm not certain some of them ever existed. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously a majority of these exist. But the sourcing is poor enough I would not be surprised if a few errors crept in. Presbyterian Church in Korea (HoHun II) (which probably should be listed) and Presbyterian Church in Korea (HoHun III) have sources for the other name; as both articles say almost nothing it isn't terribly important. Are the "II" and "III" distinctions just the creation of reformiert? I don't know. There isn't enough for many of these articles to remain even as a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They exist (or existed); see the standard reference work (Bauswein and Vischer, The Reformed Family Worldwide) here: https://archive.org/details/reformedfamilywo0000unse/. I sincerely doubt that most of them would pass WP:GNG, but a redirect would preserve the history should other editors be able to resurrect them with reliable sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose mass deletion. Per Atlantic306's comment, the onus is on the nominator to research before nominating for deletion. Per WP:SIGCOV, any language source should count; I strongly doubt anyone here searched in the Korean language. I'm nearly certain at least one of those branches will be notable. Heads up that I am South Korean and a Korean speaker, and I have no reason to suspect that some of the organizations have never existed per Walsh90210's claim. The Presbyterian church is infamously fractured in South Korea; it is the subject of scholarly research in the country, and Christian newspapers regularly cover their drama. There are hundreds of these splinter groups, some of which are more notable than others (most aren't, I suspect). seefooddiet (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall which one it was, but I successfully defended one such article (may or may not be in this list) from deletion a few months ago. It may or may not be in this list. But if I've saved at least one of these articles in the past, it's probable that I can do it again. I don't think a mass deletion is appropriate. seefooddiet (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE recommended me to check interlingual links: I don’t think any of them is notable to have a corresponding article on kowiki either. Note that one Korean language source you cited in a previous AfD deals exclusively with the change in personnel and falls under ORGTRIV. Northern Moonlight 10:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link the prev AFD? seefooddiet (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok nvm I found it, it's the one for YeJangHapBo. Also this source, from the major The Chosun Ilbo, is substantial on YeJangHapBo. If anything this just cements my point: making these broad claims about the kowiki and notability is not enough. Each one needs to be researched. Continue to strong oppose. seefooddiet (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the source you cited is actually substantial on YeJangHapBo? Northern Moonlight 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? Is this a facetious question? Do you have a different perception of it? Moreover, even if you find a crack in this one source, the fact that we're even debating this topic is not helpful to your overall cause. The takeaway should be that it's not 100% clear that every one of these nominations will be valid. Neither you or I know for certain the notability of all of these pages, therefore we should abstain from mass deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not just assume good faith once in this thread? I read your source. Can you point to a sentence in the article that isn’t “X exists”? Northern Moonlight 22:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It usually pays off to be nicer to one's colleagues. Anyhow, I failed to find in this source anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. Викидим (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Northern Moonlight Ok, egg on my face and full apology. I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent in this thread to be rude but reading it back I can see how it came off that way. I'm also not sure if that source genuinely is substantial enough, you made the correct call.

What I do stand by is that normally we should investigate each branch before this kind of mass deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. I don't really care for these, but it's evident BEFORE has not been done, and seefooddiet has good points that it's likely some of these are notable. --JFHutson (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not merge all of them into a separate article, perhaps something like List of branches of the Presbyterian Church of Korea? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps even the Presbyterian Church of Korea article itself. I might work more on expanding that one, but since most of the aforementioned AfDs are only a paragraph long or so it'll probably fit in WP:TOOLONG -- 00101984hjw (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can not be merged to a non-existent article. So, some editor has to at least start creating this target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That list already exists at Presbyterianism_in_South_Korea#Korean_Presbyterian_denominations, to which I have suggested redirects above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, there are at least more than 200 churches in South Korea that use the name "Presbyterian Church of Korea" (대한예수장로회) as their official names (hence the confusing article names). These church branches are only disambiguated by a succinct nickname, such as "Hapdong", "Tonghap", or "Hapdongbosu" (although they may use different names in English, like Hapdong, for instance). According to some sources it appears that there are four major lineages of PCK branches: Koshin(branched off from the original PCK in 1952), Kijang(branched off in 1957), Tonghap and Hapdong (the original PCK split into these two in 1959). The rest of the branches have descended from the four after 1959. [1][2] Since none of the four major branches have been listed for AfD, would it be possible to merge each AfD'd article to one of the four major branches, depending on where they descended from? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Too massive nomination. The amount of work to verify every church's notability in Korean sources is beyond what can be reasonably (let alone fairly) expected from competent and willing users. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Thank you.[reply]
Procedural keep: I don't support deleting 60+ articles on the presumption that they maybe aren't notable. No research at all has been done for most of the articles. If even one or two are notable then we have made a mistake. C F A 💬 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: I already believed these should not be deleted, and now I am convinced by other editors that redirecting is not the best approach with a nomination of this volume. However, I would ask the closer to close this with WP:NPASR and/or with no prejudice against WP:BLARing any of these where appropriate and where editors cannot find appropriate sources. My recommendation for after this closes is either to redirect the majority of these to Presbyterianism in South Korea or to, as 00101984hjw, a list article yet to be created; this can be accomplished through WP:BOLD mergers and redirection or through proposed mergers if controversial, with (hopefully) no need to return to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and this is beginning to look like a TRAINWRECK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States SailGP Team

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

Nominated as there is nothing here to assert notability. The four WP:RS are too little to establish notability.

The NTY source is difficult to read through a paywall and do not seem to focus heavily on the team to establish notability. sailsporttalk only focuses on one of the sailors with a tiny part on the team. Both sources in sail-world only talks about the team's performance in the series. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for taking the time to review this page. I agree and take your point regarding this page relying heavily on WP:PRIMARY and currently only having two WP:RS. This risks the page failing to meet notability standard based on Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability). However, there exists plenty of notable and reliable secondary sources that would address the concern regarding WP:GNG. I am advocating that this page is not deleted but rather has a template appended giving editors opportunity and time to remedy the concerns raised and improve the article. Proposing addition of template

{{Multiple issues|{{one source|date=August 2024}} {{primary source|date=August 2024}} {{Notability|Sports|date=August 2024}} {{Citations needed|template|date=August 2024}}}}

Vonkiegr8 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to add that this page has already been identified by two different WikiProjects for improvement, see Talk:United States SailGP Team . These project teams should be given the opportunity to do so. Vonkiegr8 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The sources on the article are indeed primary sources. There are possible new sources (See: [[[3]]], [[[4]]], [[[5]]], [[[6]]]). However, these may not be enough to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've add a few newspaper articles include three or four from AP. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Left (Ireland)

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

No demonstration of meeting notability per GNG. Have never won or held any notable elected position. At best a tenuous link to a single councillor who served a single term on a low-level local government council, which even CWI themselves acknowledge didn't actually run on behalf of Militant Left ([7],[8]). No Reliable Sources appear present to justify any noteworthiness.

Should be deleted or redirected to CWI (2019) Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ireland. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Committee for a Workers' International (2019). As an WP:ATD. (Subject org, effectively a "branch" of CWI formerly known as "CWI Ireland", hasn't been seen sufficient coverage in independent sources. To the extent that stand-alone notability is not established. What coverage there has been seems to be mostly in sources associated with CWI and/or other CWI "branches". In Enlgand, Scotland, etc. Even establishing basic facts (about the orgs formation/etc) necessitates reliance on primary sources. Which is far from ideal. The subject here, the Irish org, could easily be covered WP:WITHIN article on larger/parent org. With an appropriate redirect. Per WP:ATD-R.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think we should KEEP this entry. While the group might be small or marginal, that alone should not be the reason to erase their existence. If Rambling Rambler has doubts about the functionality of the group, it would be far better to add that (with reliant or primary sources) in the entry than delete it entirely.

02:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)02:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)~ 2600:1702:60:1B80:2C42:87C6:AFDA:FB87 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the group might be small or marginal, that alone should not be the reason to erase their existence

If Rambling Rambler has doubts about the functionality of the group, it would be far better to add that (with reliant or primary sources) in the entry than delete it entirely.

Both of these claims literally fail WP:GNG, which requires a standalone article to be based upon "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

So yes, my argument for Delete is sound and supported by policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Committee for a Workers' International (2019) if that article is itself not deleted before the end of this discussion. Yue🌙 05:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to close this as Merge or Redirect to Committee for a Workers' International (2019) but this article is at AFD, too. Maybe that discussion should close first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Committee for a Workers' International (2019). Spleodrach (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed Merge target article is now being merged to Committee for a Workers' International (1974). Would this be an appropriate Merge target article for this article, too? Or is there a preferable second choice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz that target would be inappropriate as this branch was not created until after the split in CWI, so is a non-notable section of a non-notable organisation (CWI (2019)) so should be deleted now that CWI (2019) has been merged. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HOOPLA!

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

No appearance of notability; found no additional coverage. PROD expired but was rejected due to a prior PROD which I must've missed. Related OOPSTAD deleted by PROD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Technology. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balsamic Moon

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources are cited and I was unable to find any with a Google search. I was also unable, with a Google search, to find an entry in a reliable dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOR and WP:GNG. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented in the last AfD - which was only a few months ago. Looking myself this does seem to be a very common and well known idea even outside of actual believer circles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there were sources presented in the last AfD that were not brought up - bad practice when the last afd was less than six months ago. A merge to planets in Astrology is reasonable and I wouldn't oppose that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only potentially reliable source I see mentioned in the previous discussion The Complete Idiot's Guide to Astrology (link to Google Books). According to the discussion, the term was described. The publisher, DK, appears to be reliable. I'm not familiar with the authors. Since I don't possess this book, I'm not in a position to use it to improve the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a full length entry. I don't think this needs to be a full article but I do think it should be somewhere, where it can be described in context. Merge is probably better than keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Planets in astrology or another befitting article, per nom. A cursory search on Google Scholar did not bring up any reasonably reliable sources on the topic. The unimpressive Google Scholar and Google search results leads me to believe that this is not a significant enough topic to be a standalone article. ArkHyena (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but "Planets in astrology" seems to be lacking in sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't meet GNG. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: From my brief browsing of book sources I could see it’s a popular astrological terminology, there are also quite many Chinese webpages introducing the concept, of course exclusively in the context of Astrology. The current article needs to be improved, apparently, but to readers come across the unfamiliar term, it's always better to have a WP page with explanation than none at all. Nihonjinatny (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suppose this is a reliable source [9]; this and the other source discussed in the comment above mine are coverage of this moon-event (?, I'm not sure what to call it) Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just uncritically presenting astrological beliefs. It is not a good source for a general encyclopaedia which doesn't take the point of view that astrology is true. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Un assiolo's concerns, I notice this website does not seem to provide any physical location, or any non-electronic method to get in touch with them. They also don't indicate what state their LLC is located in, which also helps to keep then effectively anonymous. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added sources from published books on this topic and cleaned up the article. I found some other supporting sources from other books and radio shows but I didn't feel they added much and I'm not in anyway a subject matter expert on this topic. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a couple other astrology articles up on AfD, I would also consider a merge or creation of an article to house all of these other articles. I know this is an edge case and not straightforward but if there is consensus in that direction I would be willing to help work on it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone proposed a Glossary of astrology to include all the terms that are currently up for deletion. I myself don't see the need for it and would prefer to have them all deleted, but another person was in favour, so that's three against one. So be bold and create the article, I guess. In addition to those at AfD, you may also want to consider the following articles which are currently PRODded (expires 29 August): Diurnal and nocturnal signs, Dwadasamsa, Accidental dignity, Line of advantage. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I don't see a consensus. Please evaluate changes to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Nacht

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Never been referenced as a BLP since it was created. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contao

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

All sources appear to be first-party - this looks like it could be self-promotional and non-notable to me. It seems to be German-origin software, and I tried looking at the Deutsch Wiki version of the article to see if it was any better, but it seems to be in roughly the same state. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the deletion. Contao is an OpenSource CMS like WordPress, Joomla or Typo3.

What would it take to keep the article online?

Here, for example, is an article about Contao:

https://phpconference.com/blog/the-wonderful-world-of-contao/

or here are some statistics from buildwith

https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/Contao 2001:A61:5018:4B01:D4E2:6152:5CC6:5C09 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be "like Wordpress, Joomla or Typo3" but these very BuiltWith statistics are an aggregator that shows only 0.05% market share, basically a footnote in comparison to those three (and the other big names). https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Contao shows no notable websites using it? There are a lot of CMS systems out there, surely not all of them are notable. Hornpipe2 (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you, usage popularity doesn’t determine notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but it's a hint. Hornpipe2 (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to address the plethora of materials noted below and in the “Further reading” section? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Hornpipe2 [10] by Pearson, source #7, and the PHPConference source linked above appear to be secondary. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, this article describes a sophisticated and maturing content management system that is a free and open-source potential competitor to expensive and proprietary systems. I've added some more information from the French-language site. — Objectivesea (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find gethub and other download links. Change logs used now for sourcing aren't a RS, nor is much of anything else used in the article. Easy delete. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to comment on the sources mentioned above? There's an extensive wealth of educational materials specifically for Contao listed under "Further reading". Yes, the article has yet to incorporate them, but they all seem like RSes to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent sources. The only sort-of significant source I can find is the one listed above from phpconference, but it's a blog post, so doesn't support notability. I don't have access to the German books in the "further reading" - they seem to be the usual manuals that are published to support a piece of software. I don't know if those are considered for notability - they would primarily be "how-to" and that is about the software but I don't know if those can be used to support notability. I will cycle back in case someone has the answer. Lamona (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, instruction manuals count. Being a blog doesn't degrade notability either unless it's self-published from a random person or corporate. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability page states that "product instruction manuals or specifications" are primary sources and therefore not suitable for notability. I realize that these may not be manuals created by the company itself (I do not know if any of these people have a direct connection to the company), but I'm still not sure that manuals on the order of, say, O'Reilly, support notability. They are basically "how-to". Even if the blog post is considered toward notability, that gives us only one source. Lamona (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked in the wrong place and read that page wrong. WP:NSOFTWARE is a widely cited essay that believes that instruction manuals count. Being covered by very reputable publishers such as Pearson Education both provides information to use in the article and tells that the software has had a wide impact. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Difference of opinion on whether sources brought up in the discussion are sufficient for a standalone article. Are there any ATDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà (album)

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

I don’t believe this album passes WP:NALBUM. There are apparently plenty of refs but many are now 404 and many others aren’t actually about the subject at all. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I used User:InternetArchiveBot to rescue 11 references in the article. Perhaps that will address the nominator's concerns. Whenever you see an article with a 404 reference, it may be a good idea to run https://iabot.wmcloud.org/ on the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources being dead/unarchived does not affect their reliability, so this wouldn't've been a problem in regards to this AfD, but of course it is good to check for archives anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tayo Ayeni

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

Comprehensively fails WP:NBASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. There is nothing to indicate that "Skymit Motors Ltd" is notable in its own right. The article's tone has been chatty and promotional from the first revision (nearly a decade ago), to a point where I'm fairly sure it's a paid advert. Frankly, it reads more like a LinkedIn profile than an encyclopaedia biography. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golpo Chalao Film Banao

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

Although there was plenty of publicity for this competition in 2014 it appears to have been a one off and the coverage is largely churnalism. IIt therefore does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Events. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Graquitena

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

BLP of a musician which I believe does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. There’s a lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources and most of the article is unsourced and apparently an autobio or COI editing. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Habka

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

Subject is a non-notable undergraduate student at Florida Institute of Technology: I did a due search for significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and did not find it. Biogeographist (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a PROMO article for a non-notable academic. This is what i can pull up [11], which is even puffier than the wiki article. Sourcing now in the article is non-RS, crypto pages and things that are red per Source Highlighter, very much non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing reliable independent sources for GNG, and little sign indeed of SNGs. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG. I just counted one light article in all the sources that seems to qualify. Cursory web searches don't add anything. The article reads like a detailing of one young man's ventures into the fields he has chosen. Not ready for an encyclopedia just yet. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Astronomy, Internet, Spaceflight, Florida, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are a wall of low quality cites; Florida Tech News may be the best and it's just a student paper. I didn't find anything else either. Truly incredible how much this young man has accomplished in his short time on earth but I think it's too soon. Oblivy (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)

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

Procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 29#The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album) for further details. (I am "neutral".) Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud, Thryduulf, Bugghost, Tavix, Skarmory, and Jay: Pinging participants from the RfD discussion to inform them of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Turepu

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

Redirect to List of Cook Islands international footballers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prospero (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. Has no reliable sources. Couldn't find any elsewhere. StewdioMACK (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kumar (IPS)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. Nothing anywhere near even 1 GNG reference. One is just a personnel list and 4 are covering the same item...announcement of appointment as acting head of Uttar Pradesh police. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure he's a fine police officer, but as far as notability and inclusion in an encyclopedia, the information does not meet WP:GNG. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not look like a BLP1E to me. I am seeing continuing coverage not just a single burst around one claim to fame. In particular. Some of the sources have limited coverage but I think there is enough to meet WP:GNG and searching in local languages would probably bring up even more. User: dsrprj (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: dsrprj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- Note that this is completely irrelevant. The article creator is perfectly entitled to express an opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  Yes he is but it needs to be known that this keep vote comes from creator who would obviously vote to keep the page. RangersRus (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, it is irrelevant. The nominator typically votes to Delete, the creator will often (but not always) vote to Keep, it doesn't need notation. A note shouldn't be posted indicating that their comment should be ignored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DGP of Uttar Pradesh is hardly a minor role. Heads a force bigger than many national police forces. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But rename to Prashant Kumar (police officer) per standard disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Since page also fails WP:SIGCOV and not much to go on in sources, I think Redirect to Uttar_Pradesh_Police#List_of_UP_Police_Chiefs might be another option or merge to Uttar Pradesh Police.RangersRus (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Uttar_Pradesh_Police#List_of_UP_Police_Chiefs or Merge to Uttar Pradesh Police. Sources are mostly about the subject being nominated as new acting director general of police and nothing more. If we compare with Kiran Bedi, highly notable, then the subject has not made any significant impact or achievement that is worthy of notice like that of Kiran Bedi. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am also ok with Redirect or merge. RangersRus (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why it is at all relevant to compare this article to that on someone else who went on to achieve even higher office. Are we expected to believe that if someone is not as notable as Kiran Bedi then they're not notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not looking for anyone to have achieved higher offer or running a side by side comparsion but it is an example of some sort of notability expected from the subject who has not had an impact and made any significant achievement to be considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. While most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of his local policy appointments~~, he meets WP:ANYBIO, criterion 1, as a winner of the President's Police Medal for gallantry.~~ Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: I said this in another comment to a voter that since the page fails WP:SIGCOV and not much to go on in sources, I think Redirect to Uttar_Pradesh_Police#List_of_UP_Police_Chiefs might be another option or merge to Uttar Pradesh Police. Thought on it? RangersRus (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I still think the award warrants keeping under ANYBIO.~~ I do agree with Necrothesp that the title should be changed if/when the article is retained. Looking at that list, btw, most of the holders of the office are wikilinked. I'm didn't and I'm not going to make a WP:WHATABOUT argument, but you'd need to look closely at all of those bios if you thought this one was problematic; they all have similar levels of WP:ROUTINE coverage. At any rate, my !vote was and remains based on ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran through some of the wikilinks on the other officers on the page and they are well sourced with good significant coverage with life, career, education, decorations and that is all the kind of notable coverage I am considering to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Example Sulkhan Singh. The page nominated for this AFD fails WP:SIGCOV and even the birth date though sourced but cannot even tell out of the many Prashant Kumar in the source, which one it is? that is why I thought maybe a redirect or merge would be better. RangersRus (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: RangersRus (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~.

I want to echo every single word User:Necrothesp ::(Administrators) said. Dsrprj (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC) creator of the page voted twice.[reply]

You need to stop this disruptive behavior by removing the strike comments and adding your second vote again. You can only vote once. Please do not remove again. RangersRus (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus Since your ping brought me back to this AfD, I should add that you are coming very close to WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. It's appropriate to warn an editor who is !voting twice or request them to strike, but you don't need to strike other editors' !votes yourself, even if improperly made. The closers are very capable of interpreting the discussion and discarding multiple !votes. And even if you did strike the duplicate !vote, you shouldn't to strike @Dsrprj's associated comment. That should be left up to them to decide. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: I didn't mean anything much in my comment. Earlier, the creator of the page reverted my comment that I made with a strike and a note and I wanted the creator to not do that. RangersRus (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBASIC. The individual has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include things related to his job ece his public statements, cms earning his master's degree. which is well-attested to by sources. My only lingering concern would be WP:BLP1E, but I don't think he meets either the first criterion or the second criterion (he was certainly high-profile in his role as head of police), so I'm comfortable supporting a keep here. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:6DB5:4E1E:E854:79CD:AC15:7C77 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One comment said that we was the "winner" of a particular award....the linked article says that it was one in a batch of 827 awards being given out. The noted SNG criteria says that if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor".....they "are likely to be notable" and that meeting that criteria "does not guarantee that a subject should be included." IMHO, the award misses the mark in both. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On digging into the President's Police Medal in response to North8000, it does not seem to be a rare award. In 2024 the medal for gallantry was awarded to nearly 500 individuals. I've changed my mind about WP:ANYBIO and thus about notability overall. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bengal Pro T20 League

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

Don't need separate season articles for this tournament, as the coverage doesn't warrant it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and West Bengal. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Joseph2302, It is the largest tournament in East and North East India and it's one of the important leagues in India, I presume after a few years it will have same importance as Tamil Nadu Premier League or KSCA tournament, I believe this article should be kept. Beside that, can you please highlight the main issue in this article other than the coverage. A league can't be famous in just one season, it needs time, and this league had enough coverage being a new league according to what I saw in the internet and from the residents of West Bengal. Wowlastic10 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please check the Tamil Nadu Premier League pages, including those dedicated to individual annual editions like the 2022 Tamil Nadu Premier League, 2023 Tamil Nadu Premier League, and 2024 Tamil Nadu Premier League. Separate pages exist for each team as well. Similarly, the Delhi Premier League T20, which is also organized under the directions of Board of Control for Cricket in India BCCI, has gained significant coverage after the successful completion of its seasons. Given this, it would be beneficial for Wikipedia readers to have dedicated pages for each annual edition of the Delhi Premier League T20, as well as individual pages for each team, similar to those for Tamil Nadu Premier League teams like Salem Spartans, Chepauk Super Gillies, and Lyca Kovai Kings.

Note Several Twenty20 pages have existed includimg thier annual leagues for many years, and in my opinion, it is not appropriate to nominate them for deletion.

It appears that certain teams are selectively promoting specific and state-level leagues while pushing for the deletion of others. This practice seems to favor the retention of pages related to their preferred leagues, potentially at the expense of others.

Wikipedia is a global platform that should uphold the principle of equality for all pages that have significant coverage. It's important to ensure that all state and national leagues with significant covearge, regardless of their popularity or backing, are treated fairly and given the opportunity to be represented. Consistent and unbiased application of Wikipedia's guidelines is crucial to maintaining its integrity as a reliable and inclusive source of information. Davidrun99 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the above keep reasons offer any reasoning whatsoever, just "these exist, so this should too". Clearly, this tournament also fails WP:GNG and consists wholly of WP:NOTSTATS. AA (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't told that Just because other tournament exists, this too shall exist. The Tamil Nadu premier league season pages exist because we have given them time. Why don't we give time to this article? Please Highlight how can I save this article rather than demotivating. Thank you! Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The league is not notable (even majority of the players) or noteworthy enough nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG. No need for separate page when most of the WP:CFORK is from Bengal Pro T20 League RangersRus (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please give suggestions to save this article. I will start research and find all necessary website articles for it. Thank you! Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wowlastic10 not commenting on this but basically what you need is 3 reliable sources with significant coverage; i.e. three news articles from different outlets, independent of the tournament, and not almost-entirely derived from official press releases, giving a couple paragraphs on it would likely work. Strictly you only need "multiple reliable sources" but 3 is the usual amount. I think the article *might* have this now, but I can't tell? Wikipedia notability really isn't supposed to be about how important something is, but how much writing exists on it. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Guidelines / Standards for Establishing Wikipedia Notability for State Cricket Leagues:

In my opinion, establishing clear guidelines for creating Wikipedia articles related to state cricket leagues is essential to ensure they meet the notability criteria and have a lasting presence on the platform. To pass the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG and retain annual league and team articles, I propose the following criteria:

Completion of Multiple Seasons: State leagues, such as the Tamil Nadu Premier League, should successfully complete at least one to three annual league series. This demonstrates consistency, relevance, and the league’s potential for long-term significance in the cricketing landscape.

Involvement of National Players: The state league should feature at least 10 players who have competed in prestigious events such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), national cricket tournaments, or international matches. The presence of such players not only elevates the league's standard but also increases its notability and media coverage.

Minimum Team Requirement and Broadcast Standards: To align with national and international guidelines, the state cricket league should consist of a minimum of six teams. Additionally, the league should be broadcast live on major sports channels like Star Sports, ESPN, or equivalent platforms. This ensures widespread visibility and demonstrates the league’s significance beyond the local level.

By adhering to these guidelines, we can ensure that Wikipedia articles about state cricket leagues are both notable and valuable resources for readers, reflecting the importance of these leagues in the broader context of cricket. Davidrun99 (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just writing the rules/entry criteria for a tournament doesn't mean that it passes WP:GNG, which is the main criteria for whether an article is kept or not (not any of the rules you're making up on this and similar AFDs). Where is the evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caprona (island)

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, without enough significant coverage. WP:BEFORE is hard because the name of the books are sometimes described as the Caprona books, but they already have articles. I am not sure of a redirect target but the first book might be a choice. Jontesta (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 21:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I really doubt that there isn't extensive coverage of a central location in books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. We also don't have a central article for the Caspak series, so this article serves an obvious purpose in that it can save the individual book articles a lot of reduplication. I don't see any reason to delete this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't know why nobody started an article for the Caspak series like the rest of the franchises established by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The person who created this page would've had his keep, merge, or delete opinion, but he's been inactive since 2017. As for you @Asilvering:, are you putting your vote down for keep? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I'm not going to make a formal keep !vote until I find (or someone else finds) sources that would establish WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Formal Keep - My comment that I added still stands about the lack of a page for the Caspak franchise. That's why I am agreeing with @Asilvering:'s comments related to what I just mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but convert into a page on the series. The in-universe details can be kept as part of the setting background if sourced. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a series article per PARAKANYAA/Rtkat3. WP:BEFORE shows the Caspak trilogy is most common, which gives this a better foundation with more sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains in Willard Price's Adventure series

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. List of often non-notable elements with no attempt at secondary sourcing or justification of notability. All the books are already listed and summarized at Adventure series (Willard Price) and this is a non-notable duplicate. Jontesta (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - The current article is completely unsourced, and searches did not turn up any sources to indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. All but one of the characters listed here are stated to have been one-shot characters that appeared in a single book, and that one exception is already described on the main article on the series. As an unlikely search term, a Redirect is unnecessary, and the article can just be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Metal Men enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, such as "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources that I can find that give significant coverage to the Metal Men's enemies that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. Very few of these entries link to articles, because most have zero notability. Could possibly Redirect to Metal Men#Enemies, but given that the title is an unlikely search term and it does not appear that anything currently redirects to this list, I don't see that as being really necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with their section at Metal Men in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources, exactly? Rorshacma (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sources any source hunters on this website can find. Plus, the person who created this list page is currently inactive last time I checked. If nobody finds one, my decision is still merge. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. WP:BEFORE didn't show me a lot of sources. I wouldn't object to a partial merge if that WP:ATD emerges as a consensus. But that's really hard when a lot of these fail WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleppey Ripples

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

This team plays in a tournament without great coverage, and so we so not require separate team articles. Does not meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Kerala. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for other teams from the same league:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per nom. AA (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bestial sign

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Un assiolo (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see several reasonable results on Google Books, such as here and here. It's also a dated term (see first link, and notice that second link is from the turn of the century), so I expect there to be more sources that aren't digitized.— Moriwen (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this WP:SIGCOV or a trivial mention? Both books are unavailable for me. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is about 3 paragraphs of coverage. Source 2 is a dictionary definition. I would support merging this into a Glossary of astrology because I don't think there's enough coverage to ever expand this. C F A 💬 21:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we just have a Glossary of astrology or something? You can't say a lot about a lot of these things but the terms themselves are discussed and it would be helpful for trying to sort out what is what in the sea of new age nonsense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a glossary of astrology on the web with an entry for this topic. Do we really need one on Wikipedia, too? If we do choose to create one, it would need to include more than just the few terms that are currently up for deletion. --Un assiolo (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we "need" any article? Not really. And yet we have 6 million of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and FRINGE. Only one source is tantamount to original research. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Gardner (migration expert)

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

All edits are by this obvious agency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starklinson

This amounts to a self-written autobiography of an opinion columnist. It does not warrant a wikipedia article and the current one is promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - need to be vigilant for paid / self written promotional articles like this 92.95.93.78 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very clear cut case of a non-notable person. Badharlick (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[12] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Wikipedia policy does not care about your opinions on how you think the world ought to be. Badharlick (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all this including altering the title.Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD, I'm thinking this discussion could end up as being a no consensus outcome. What do you feel about (refugee advocate) as the disambiguation? TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
- ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about source 1? Starklinson (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview with/about her, not terrible but not nearly enough. Generally don't count for RS as they are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the provenance of this article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Awards are WP:MILL (a trade pub's 30 under 30), and the rest of the sources are WP:INTERVIEWS (which do not contribute to notability), WP:ROUTINE coverage of organizations she works for and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. No obvious redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with this. Badharlick (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could draftify be an option? – Starklinson 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starklinson, draftification is generally for newish articles, not for ones which have already been around for a year and haven't demonstrated that they meet our notability guidelines in that time. See WP:DRAFTNO. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Oaktree b and Dclemens1971. It also does read somewhat like a resume. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiple sources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.

Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of third-level administrative divisions by area

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

Article fails WP:LISTN when looking for sources, seems to be complete WP:SYNTH. A complete article would likely bee tens of thousands of items long. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of second-level administrative divisions by area

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

This article fails WP:LISTN and appears to be complete WP:SYNTH. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Great for Schott's Miscellany, not for Wikipedia. This is a non notable intersection and fails WP:NLIST. This is also unmaintainable. It has taken considerable effort to create, which is unfortunate, but effort does not equate to notability. Referencing is woefully inadequate 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani animated television series

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

An unsourced list of non-notable work does not really meet WP:NLIST imv. and since it includes only a handful of entries, it's make sense to delete it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 11:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A rather standard list. Can be very easily sourced individually or with things like https://english.aaj.tv/news/330375751/pti-calls-off-rally-as-islamabad-red-zone-sealed-schools-closed ; https://tribune.com.pk/story/409963/animatedly-yours etc. There's no "TV animation in Pakistan" article so a list is suitable. Could also be considered a WP:SPLITLIST of List of Pakistani television series so I find no real reason for deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So If there isn’t an article on TV animation in Pakistan, probably due to insufficient coverage, then having a list on the topic, which also lacks coverage and primarily includes non-notable work, seems unnecessary and fails to meet WP:NLIST imv. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Bik

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

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

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

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

Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [13] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harpal Dev Makwana

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

This article is part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala dynasty and Jhala (clan) created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes someone who is almost certainly a legendary figure and launders the sources to present him as a historical person. He may have been, but the sources do not indicate that:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as heir and descendent of Harpal Dev. It includes fantastic stories from the vahi (legendary geneaologies of high-caste Indian families), including Harpal Dev/Harpaldev defeating a ghost in battle and marrying a goddess, Shak-Ti who supernaturally rescues their children from an elephant.
Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
A Life with Wildlife: From Princely India to the Present is also by a purported descendant of Harpal Dev and retails the same fantastic stories, but at least presents them as legend.
Harpal Dev appears in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in several government gazetteers, including some cited in this article]
Popular Culture in a Globalised India is cited for a factual biographical claim, but it only discusses Harpal Dev in the context of a fictional stage play.
The Rajputs of Saurashtra discusses the Jhala Rajputs but says of the Harpal Dev story, "Bardic tales about their migrations from the Himalayan region to Sindh seem to contain little truth."
The article's sources include a few other trivial mentions, including a Who's Who that retails a descendant's claim of descent from Harpal Dev

Bottom line: What WP:SIGCOV we have on Harpal Dev is legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish him as a historical figure. I know WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, but with such a compromised article I recommend WP:TNT instead of trying to battle an army of socks claiming legendary stories are real. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of highways by number

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

Article is just an old, reformatted version of {{List of highways numbered index}}, missing ~116 highways with a lettered suffix (e.g. 1A).
Additions, maintenance, and formatting improvements/changes are better made once at the template, which is displayed on all ~1100 related pages, instead of duplicated on both pages. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list of a list and is a valid page for navigational reasons, see WP:LISTOFLISTS. I don't find either deletion argument credible. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Referendum

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, Nigeria, and Finland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the statement The sources are to a large extent media-repetitions of what he says on social media, in WP-terms way to much WP:ABOUTSELF to be maybe unintentionally wrong. I just assessed most of these sources and did not spot any that I can categorise under WP:ABOUTSELF. I reassessment or overall source analysis might be appropriate if the nominator can. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces Thanks for commenting. Take these sources from the article as example.[14][15][16] Much is repetition of What Ekpa says and announces (and they generally make that clear). This is, in my understanding, ABOUTSELF even if repeated by others. That is pretty much all that is known on this whatever. This [17] may very well be a WP:RS, and it clearly states "Ekpa says X and Y." For some reason "Ekpa says 30 million voted" from that source becomes "30 million voted" in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of deputy speakers of the Assam Legislative Assembly

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

The subject of this list fails WP:NLIST. The only source is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a WP:BEFORE search turns up no examples of this group of individuals discussed as a group. , but as a standalone list there's no evidence of sufficient notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Gawin

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

The article is mostly based on primary sources, while the secondary sources are mostly or entirely unreliable, being as follows:

[18] prawdaoeligawin.blogspot.com is an attack site directed towards the article subject, extremely unacceptable for a biography.
[19] celebryci.info is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[20] dramki.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[21] vibez.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[22] Not sure if kobieta.wp.pl is considered reliable. Due to legal reasons the cited article does not disclose the subject's last name but only the first letter, so I'm not sure if this is compatible with BLP.
[23] truestory.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[24] krakow.naszemiasto.pl is a local newspaper. It may be considered reliable, but like some sources above, it doesn't disclose the subject's surname, only the first letter.
[25] wiadomosci.gazeta.pl is a tabloid, I think, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.
[26] pomponik.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[27] o2.pl is a tabloid, I think, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.

Overall, even if someone can prove that WP:GNG is narrowly met, this article is still a glaring WP:BLP violation, so I believe it would be the best to WP:TNT it regardless. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of second-level administrative divisions by population

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

WP:BEFORE scan shows that this page fails WP:LISTN. Seems like original research to me -1ctinus📝🗨 16:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I welcome this new user's contributions, but they likely were not aware that drafts are preferred for incomplete pages. Anyway, it's not original research to simply list the populations of geographic entities or even to group second-level divisions, but I don't think it's very helpful to combine counties of one country and provinces of another, which have entirely different forms of governments and organizations. These have very different levels of responsibility and relationships to 1st and 3rd levels, and there is very little to be learned from this. The page is intended to be comparable to List of second-level administrative divisions by area, but I don't see the point of having that either. Reliable sources do not make these comparisons, so it's not a notable list. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or Draftify. 80:20 Delete:Draftify. I was slightly bewildered by the move history, but now understand it. If the nom had returned it to draft we would not be here. The mover saw, correctly, that draftifying while at AfD was out of process, though a WP:IAR drafification would have been fine IMHO, since this list is not remotely ready for mainspace. Regarding a deletion rationale, this does not appear to be a notable intersection, and the referencing is woefully inadequate. Fails WP:NLIST, and is a broadly empty table awaiting data. However, I do not believe that a full table would be in any way maintainable nor maintained. Regarding a Draftification rationale, as I write this I am finding it harder to justify, primarily because of the maintainability. I have moved from 60:40 to 80:20 with my delete to draftily rationale while typing this opinion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH at best. And the list would not be able to pass WP:NLIST according to my BEFORE, hence I side with Timtrent in thinking even if this were to return to the draftspace, I doubt it would be passable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Jünger

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

Only source is a self published website anyone can edit. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A reasonable WP:ATD would be to redirect to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Otto

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

Completely unreferenced article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A reasonable WP:ATD would be redirecting this to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This talks about him for a few paragraphs, [28], but it's basically a long story detailing the position over several generations, I'm not sure he's more notable than the others listed. The lack of any kind of sourcing doesn't help trying to figure this out; one source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are a number of book sources listed in the German Wikipedia article here, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Lange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment same source [29] as used in my discussion for the Otto AfD (right above this one)... I'm more clear about Otto's deletion discussion than this one, I'm not sure if this person is notable or not. Otto has a lack of sourcing.

Electronic daily devotional

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

Original research. The subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Ynsfial (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, and Internet. Ynsfial (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daily devotional. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mack. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever little, if anything, in here is specifically about daily devotionals to Daily devotional. Possibly nothing, in which case delete. Nearly everything else is boilerplate language that can be applied to anything in print media that existed before the Internet Age: It was sent by email. Then it started appearing on the Web. Early versions were clunky. Then it went to mobile apps. The End. Largoplazo (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. I'm just not seeing the super GNG-smashing sources that say this MUST be standalone, but there's Ebony for one, Crosswalk aggregating a list of them, and the Salvation Army plugging their own. There's definitely room for a more expansive section in Daily devotional, and arguably room to keep this standalone if someone does more digging and finds a couple more independent RS. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junoon (2008 TV series)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Article has zero source. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 10:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Reality/non-scripted_programming: or to Annu Kapoor -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 12:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert Song (Max Liebman Presents)

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

Declined twice at WP:AFC moved by creator to main space, no evidence of notability, just listings and passing mentions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://playbill.com/article/the-dvd-shelf-a-connecticut-yankee-desert-song-four-weddings-and-a-funeral-honeymoon-in-vegas-and-more-com-181767 ; one paragraph in Thomas McCavour's 2020 The Gayety & Other Stories ; various mentions in reliable books, so that a redirect to the programme or to the operetta is totally warranted in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC) + https://www.reformer.com/local-news/more-vintage-tv-musicals-from-the-50s/article_9fbb2418-386a-52ae-858c-8488a27fea3c.html (pretty slow to open but significant)[reply]

Fidelis Security

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news, press-releases and business annoucements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyLead

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

Citations look like paid PR articles, no other claim to notability. Google search turns up other similar articles. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Ukraine. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO in non-RS. This is also promo content as seen at the bottom of the article [30], nothing else found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Racist?

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

Doesn't appear to have proven notability aside from that Matt Walsh is involved. Only two references, both from the same website which is a social media aggregate and may not itself meet the criteria of a reliable source (and should probably carry a bias warning as owned by a conservative Christian broadcasting corporation, with the promo code Libtard to get 50% off to give you an idea). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be a few reliable sources discussing it including Hollywood Reporter and The Hill, possibly more, that was just a quick look. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The THR article is a pretty clear press release write-up (doesn't make it unreliable but it's not in itself significant coverage), and The Hill segment is really about the marketing stunt which I don't think really speaks to the notability of the film itself. This has a good chance of changing when it's actually released but on the coverage it currently has it'd be better suited to a couple of sentences on Walsh's page. Chaste Krassley (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: release in 2 weeks and I think AfDs about films whose release is scheduled during or immediately after the AfD come either too late or too early. Feel free to consider this a procedural keep !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Hollywood Reporter coverage referenced above looks like WP:SIGCOV, not churnalism. (It appears to be based on the trailer plus additional reporting about the upcoming release.) There's also SIGCOV in the New York Post (not deprecated for entertainment news), commentary by a staff writer at The Mary Sue and at AwardsDaily. Together, this constitutes a pass of WP:NFILM. And as Mushy notes above, I'd expect additional coverage and reviews in the days ahead. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on current sources, fails GNG and SIGCOV. Nothing else to comment on here. CNC (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources that editors have flagged in this discussion per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given BEFORE doesn't apply to me as I'm not the nominator, I'll ignore this point. Based on NEXIST, granted Hoolwood Reporter is sigcov, whereas The Hill falls short. Citing WP:NYPOST as sigcov is otherwise short cited, clearly a film titled "Am I Racist" is political and therefore coverage is GUNREL. Regarding Mary Sue, an attack piece isn't exactly contributing much towards sigcov of the topic, but rather commentary on Matt Walsh himself. I'm otherwise not convinced AwardsDaily is RS, but could be convinced otherwise. This to me leaves only HR as the sigcov, which per policy, is not enough for NFILM on it's own. CNC (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON. The only references in the article currently is a site reposting social media posts, people posting on twitter don't prove notability. The other articles mentioned, and that I could find, don't appear to provide enough for notability at the moment. If more appear after the premier then the situation may change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested to Delete based on the reasons stated -- essentially that as it stands, the only two citations don't prove notability (and I'd suggest are not from a reliable source) and that the other existing coverage doesn't appear to be significant.

The page has also bypassed approval in the first place and at least in my opinion would have failed it.

It might gain notability later, but pages typically wouldn't be approved on what might happen. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Just a procedural note: nominators of pages for deletion are by default considered tacitly !voting Delete. It is therefore not necessary for them to bold that word anywhere else on the page as it might pass for a double !vote, even though I am sure you did it in good faith. Please consider using italics. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkeruTomoe I see this appears to be your first AfD nomination, so I encourage you to read WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Notability is not based on the sourcing in the article at the time of nomination. It's also based on the existence of coverage that meets WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline. WP:BEFORE says it is incumbent on nominators to search for additional sources before nominating. Editors in this conversation are surfacing reliable source WP:SIGCOV, and you should consider those sources as the debate progresses. Pinging @Chaste Krassley and @CommunityNotesContributor who are also new to AfD. I also had a lot to learn when I first got active at AfD! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? new to AfD? With 15+ years of WP experience, I understand the process thanks. CNC (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says your account was created 10 months ago and the stats say this is your 6th AfD. How would you expect anyone to think otherwise? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually check someone's user page, that's how. CNC (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I apologize for reaching my conclusion before I read all of your user boxes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IV.AI

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous instance was deleted at AfD in 2018. This new instance is sourced to generic references about AI but I am not seeing the specific references about this company which would be needed to demonstrate that notability has now been attained. AllyD (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again, not notable. I hope it's not paid editing. The creator of the previously deleted version, Banassac, was indeffed for promotional editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:SIRS Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acronical place

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

Obscure astrology term, WP:NOTDICT. Two of the three references are on the word "acronical", one of which is a blog. Un assiolo (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we just have a Glossary of astrology or something? You can't say a lot about a lot of these things but the terms themselves are discussed and it would be helpful for trying to sort out what is what in the sea of new age nonsense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Bengal Centralised Admission Portal

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

Lacks significance. It's just an admission portal. The article doesn't appear to be significant enough. Thewikizoomer (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the article about the "West Bengal Centralised Admission Portal. I believe the portal plays a significant role in modernizing the admission process for government colleges in West Bengal. It ensures greater transparency, accessibility, and efficiency for thousands of students annually. Additionally, the portal has received considerable recognition from government and media sources, highlighting its transformative impact on the state's education system. I will enhance the article with additional citations and details to better reflect its importance.

Also same type of articles exist on the Wikipedia

Sistema de Seleção Unificada

Common Application Arijit Kisku (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It lacks notability, no major significance of the subject, Common App is very popular and one of the only ways to apply in the US, this portal doesn't have that notability. Xoocit (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The West Bengal Centralised Admission Portal is a crucial government initiative that facilitates admissions to over 460 government and government-aided colleges in the state, serving more than 5.2 lakh students annually. The portal's impact has been widely covered by reliable newspapers like The Telegraph India and others, further establishing its importance in West Bengal's education system. While not globally known like the Common App, it plays a transformative role regionally, making it notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Arijit Kisku (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might serve a specialized purpose, but is not notable. Many countries have specialized national admission arrangements. ~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please sign your comments so we can see who you are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bread and Roses (band)

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

Tagged for dubious notability 9 years ago. I am unable to find reviews of this band, which did not have a large output either. Found this, but it's not a reliable source for a review. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent, reliable sources found to demonstrate significant coverage as proof of notability. Even if you make a Google search of "Bread and Roses band" you can't find enough referecences as the result is a mixture of other entities named Bread and Roses. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Meise

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

Sources are about the company; fails to meet WPANYBIO; COI (created by the employee - see the name of the author). BoraVoro (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe to draftify? BoraVoro (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion. While some cited sources are about the company, the article also cites multiple good sources that discuss the subject in detail, for example AW Architektur & Wohnen (footnote 1), Die Welt (footnote 4), or Handelsblatt (footnote 12). Also, I think that the article meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Meise has receieved well-known awards, which the article demonstrates. --88.20.56.144 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Not enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The welt.de is the only source that may pass as proof of notability at this time; awmagazin.de is somehow local, industry-related; handelsblatt.com is mixed with an interview, so might not be enoguh proof of notaility. Even counting, handelsblatt.com, that makes for only 2 sources. The other sources that appear through an online search have not been used/cited in Wikipedia, so their independence/reliability is not yet established, i.e., may not be enough to prove WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HN R200

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

Very small company that only produced three examples of a car. No evidence of significant notability, not everything belongs on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzworld Buggies

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

Very small car kits company which has only produced ~250. No independent indication of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Buggies

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

Unnotable company that has only created 15 kits. No significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shekar Natarajan

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

Promo article. Fails WP:BIO. Refs are mostly interviews and profiles. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crendon Replicas

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

One of too many articles created by the same editor. I cannot see a company that has produced about 100 car kits as notable. No significant sources provided, I do not consider trade lists as proving notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V The Serial

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 07:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vikas Gupta#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Gilbert Hegemier

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

As the title says, this is a list of an academics articles. If he was a nobel laureate then perhaps one is appropriate. He is not, just a routine academic who may not pass WP:NPROF. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not suitable for Wikipedia. It does not provide a free web hosting service. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. We might maintain this sort of list for someone whose name is known to all, such as List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. For someone who passes our notability standards for academics but is not really famous, no. We should at best keep a handful of selected publications, those that have been particularly heavily cited or are themselves the subject of in-depth publications by others (like books with published book reviews), as a subsection of the main biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I basically agree with David Eppstein. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that such lists are sometimes useful for extraordinary scholars and cases, but this is not one of those times. Qflib (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know understand why you nominated it for deletion. I agree and I believe a selected publications/selected works in his main article is what I should had gone with in the first place.Particleshow22 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastas Kristo

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Very low-key career, played some games in Malta. The stints in Italy and Scotland were negligible, if he even played at all. Are there sources? There are stat databases, passing mentions. This is from a union he belongs to, so a primary source. Then there are some post-football, not-so-favourable coverage, which is at the same time far from meeting WP:PERP. Geschichte (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrit Hithi

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. 5 minutes in Albania's highest league and some seasons with very limited playing time in the semi-pro second tier where match attendance is in the hundreds. As for sources, I only found stat databases, Facebook posts, and short non-significant coverage such as this and this. Geschichte (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Geisshuesler

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

A lot of the sources are merely authored by himself or primary sources from institutions where he has worked. Fails WP:PROF, a low citation count at 37 in Google scholar. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Switzerland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has published stuff, but citations to it are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I agree with above. Bduke (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regrettably. Religious studies is not a high-citation field, but I was unable to find any reviews of his books, either. Maybe this could be revisited in a few years. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College

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

The cited sources are two press releases (Sylheter Dak and Daily Jalalabad), a list of the ~60 schools operated by the army, a job posting, and the school website. Searches in English and Bengali found a few primary source breaking news stories, generally of the form "so-and-so, a student at Jalalabad Cantonment English School and College",[31] but no independent, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the school itself. Therefore does not meet WP:NSCHOOL and should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce Seriously? No independent sources or secondary containing significant coverage? Look again and see the citations and what should i attempt to do. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark rock

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dark Rock

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

A redirect to goth rock was reverted. There do not seem to be any sources proving this meets the GNG, the article is full of WP:OR and what little sources do mention this term mention it in passing as an alternative term and do not describe it in detail. Nothing discussing this as an actual "genre" in depth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a descriptive word added to "rock". Not its own genre. Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Hershcovich

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

I cannot find independent sources with significant coverage suitable to meet WP:NBASIC, and I cannot find evidence to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPROF. I have looked under both the article name and "Arie Hershkowitz", the name given on the CV in reference 1. Mgp28 (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Israel. Mgp28 (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name is אריה הרשקוביץ. Most of his research is under Arie Herscovici, with other sources under Arie Hershcovich and Arie Hershkowitz. אריה has many spellings as well but hopefully that part is more consistent for this Arie. gidonb (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. Using "Arie Herscovici" I'm still not seeing enough independent coverage to make me think the article meets the appropriate notability criteria. An attempt at using his name in Hebrew with Google Translate seemed to bring up news stories about people with the same name who are not him, but I will be interested to know if there are sources in Hebrew that show notability. Mgp28 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are fairly common. Hershkowitz is the status quo name in English, French, and German. Herșcovici is the Romanian spelling. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibhuprasad Mohapatra

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply fails WP:GNG a before shows no independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. Theroadislong (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary independent reliable sources on the page. All the references are publications written by the subject. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Paul

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, South Africa, and Greece. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asasey Hotel attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT no lasting coverage. Cannot find any coverage of the event after July except for trivial one line mentions in articles discussing other attacks. Closest thing I could find was this: https://www.kormeeraha.com/2021/03/12/canadian-school-renamed-after-hodan-nalayeh/ but it is about a victim more than the attack.

Unfortunately hotel attacks are a common incident in Somalia and just aren't very notable. Could be merged into Hodan Nalayeh, al-Shabaab, or the Somali civil war Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Somalia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2019 timeline of the Somali Civil War. Or redirect, it's already mentioned there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. Hotel attacks are not a common incident in Somalia just as school shootings are not in the United States, despite what is suggested from news coverage. An attack in which 25+ people are killed is not WP:ROUTINE and there was international news coverage of the attack in global RS including FT, NYT, CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, etc. More than enough coverage to establish WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH, and WP:GNG for WP:NEVENT. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg But not WP:SUSTAINED which is one of the more important aspects in WP:NEVENT. There is nothing after a month. Death toll is not notability, plenty of even higher casualty attacks are not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three participants and three different outcomes proposed, the definition of No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with merging to the timeline article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources brought up. @PARAKANYAA:: articles are not required to meet GNG and every applicable SNG but GNG or any applicable SNG. This doesn't have lasting consequences, but it does have plenty of coverage in reliable sources.Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 21:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Delete per replies: I'd forgotten about the whole For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources bit. — Alien333 ( what I did[reply]
why I did it wrong ) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states sources should be secondary. All the sourcing appears to be primary sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alien333 That is not what NEVENT is. NEVENT is meant to distinguish/help to distinguish events that may suffer from WP:PRIMARYNEWS (since, initially, that's going to be all of the sources). All of the sources here are primary and therefore none contribute to GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, every single passing events that blows up in the media for two days has "plenty of coverage in reliable sources"; but we clearly don't have an article on every crime that's ever happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a news story. There is no long-term coverage in secondary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by Longhornsg are all from the time of the event. No WP:LASTING effect to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:PARAKANYAA, you have voiced other opinions here. Are you no longer arguing for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still arguing for a merge/redirect since it's part of the greater event and was discussed within that context. I do not think it is notable outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frutiger Aero

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

This was nominated for deletion by User:Seocwen. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is in good condition, has plenty of sources, and passes GNG. I do not think there's any reason to delete it. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be plenty of sources and I'd like to see how this article develops. StewdioMACK (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in dispute, see the talk page. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources are a bit lower-quality than I'd like, but that's no reason to delete the article. It passes GNG like Di said, exemplified by its mention in The Guardian (even if they did mischaracterize it as a screensaver style). Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass GNG? Make a case if you're going to assert something controversial. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the proportion of keep !votes here, I doubt the claim the article passes GNG is "controversial", but here is my case.

The General Notability Guideline is:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Let's apply it to this article.

When a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article, the subject is assumed to deserve its own article unless editors come to a consensus otherwise. The consensus here in this deletion discussion (as of now) is that Frutiger Aero does deserve its own article.

Significant coverage is...eh, I'll stop restating WP:GNG now. Multiple articles solely about Frutiger Aero are significant coverage.

As for reliable sources, we've got Dazed and Creative Bloq (those are the ones I'm familiar with) which are quite diligent when it comes to the arts, and The Guardian, which is The Guardian. I'm not familiar with the other sources cited, but I trust my fellow editors.

None of these sources created Frutiger Aero (inasmuch that Frutiger Aero can be said to be "created") or named it (that would be CARI), so we can comfortably consider them independent. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Furthermore, a single mention of a fad or trend in a good newspaper like the Guardian does not make something in itself notable. Also, don't trust your fellow editors - if you're getting involved do your job a peer reviewer.

Did you read the Re-Edition article? It is very plainly stated and obvious that the term was created and defined by Sofi Lee, a contributor to CARI - which is just an online community, not a reliable source. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is based on consensus. You are literally the only person who holds your opinion on this article. The consensus seems to be that you're just wrong. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Getting a fan club together to vote in favor of hoaxes and misinformation is not supposed to carry water. Also it is not a consensus if there is disagreement, by definition. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "fan club". Everyone in this thread is a normal editor. You're just wrong. That is the consensus. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of friendly advice: it may be time to step away for a bit. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Bowler. Di, you can disagree with this editor without resorting to this approach to the conversation — we don't need to go there. Seocwen, for your part, please refrain from making accusations of foul play against your fellow editors and assume good faith. I am not here because I'm part of a "fan club" or "pushing an agenda", but because I believe this article would be an improvement to the encyclopedia if it existed, and I think the same applies to the other participants of this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the number of times I've been reverted, in the entirety, without discussion, and without any consideration of the individual contributions I've made, it feels like a stretch of logic to assume good faith. I'm sorry that's the case, but I can't trust people setting my work on fire and then refusing even to talk about it. I recognize that my language has been unduly harsh at times, but I have not found the atmosphere collegial and that impacts my ability to communicate at my best. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Frutiger Aero is a hoax, perhaps deleting the article is counterproductive. Wikipedia has many articles about hoaxes, which make it abundantly clear that the subject is a hoax, and have reliable sources disproving it. If you have reliable sources disproving Frutiger Aero as a genuine phenomenon, we can rework the article to incorporate this contrary evidence. But simply deleting the article would be counterproductive either way.

On another node, as Di said (a bit indelicately), this seems to be a one-against-many situation. What may help you right now is reading the essay I linked and following its advice. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, if the article does stay, I would strongly advocate for it to be rewritten. I have already attempted to rewrite it to be more accurate, but my edits just get reverted and without discussion. As to evidence - the original authors maintain that their cultural commentator sources are automatically legitimate and the onus is on me to "disprove them with evidence," whereas the cultural commentator source evidence I have provided as a refutation are deemed automatically unacceptable and dismissed out of hand. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the "cultural commentator source" you're referring to is the JJ McCullough YouTube video that you tried to add, it has already been explained that the video is not reliable because it is a user-generated video with no editorial oversight. It's literally just some random guy's opinion. It's quite bizarre that you consider the sources in the article to be "blogs" but you tried to add a video blog. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia considers a YouTube video published on a personal channel a self-published source and therefore not reliable. If you wish to give sources to back up your claims, make sure that the sources you give are acceptable under Wikipedia's reliable source policy.

Additionally, your comment about what you would do if the article stayed suggests to me that you think the article can be salvaged. In that case, this is definitely not the forum you should take your concerns to. If you wish to keep advocating for deletion however, you should read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. The independent journalist with nearly a million subscribers isn't good enough, but an anonymous rump of an article from the ilk of Re-Edition magazine is. The TV journalist who interviewed the likely next Canadian prime-minister is of no consequence to Wikipedia, but Natalie Fear of Creative Bloq is. I mean, if that's Wikipedia's policy what more can I say other than I believe that's a ridiculous, bad, dismissive, and overly bureaucratic policy I don't agree with and know you won't care. Do I need to get a contributor to Peculiar Mormyrid to write about this? Or will it be the "your magazine isn't good as my magazine" kind of thing?

The fact that I believe the article's contents are best addressed on the Microsoft Aero already , where the distinction between it and the Frutiger Aero microgenre is more clear, does not mean that, if I were forced to accept the independent status of the page, I would not want it to be accurate. One does not follow from the other. You could argue a merge proposal would be more appropriate, but the key information is already present on the Microsoft Aero page so I believe there would be very little actual merging going on. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this is not the place to debate Wikipedia policy. For the sake of the discussion, please take your policy concerns to the village pump, and on this page please make arguments based on the policies as they are written now. Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can indeed take those concerns up in that venue. Notwithstanding the subject of discussion is a contemporary neologism describing the a retrospective aesthetic conceptualization. The kind of "editorial" oversight you are pointing to hardly pertains when the entire subject of discussion is opinion. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG - ie. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Most of the sources cited are fashion blogs dedicated to contemporary aesthetics and qualify as neither reliable nor notable sources. Even the genuine news sources are essentially brief reports on a fad or trend. I think it would probably be enough to place a mention on Microgenre along with the other nostalgia aesthetics, but in any case, the mention on The Windows Aero page is clear and accurate about its relationship to Fruitger Aero. Windows Aero was itself "the design language introduced in the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system." It is a well-established part of the Windows Vista brand. Frutiger Aero is a recent coinage, from 2017, signifying a retrospective look at Windows Aero and similar. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The National, The Guardian, Re-Edition Magazine and Dazed are all blogs? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the Guardian. Please make a real response there. And no, Dazed is not a journal of record. I have personally published magazines of that caliber. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that all the sources are journals of record but that isn't actually the requirement for WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia, that would be editorial oversight. You'll find plenty of magazines of that sort on on WP:RSP. This is the reason blogs, YouTube videos and other WP:SPS are not RS because they are don't have editorial oversight. You'll note that you first claimed that the articles sources were mostly blogs and then when asked to explain how published magazines with an editorial staff was a blog, you switched the question to be about journal[s] of record. So I'll ask again: how are the above listed sources blogs as you originally claimed. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online, whether by a group or individual. Whether that group has a name with something like "Research Institute" in it, and whether it produces a print copy does not make it independent or reliable. Many such website exists that amount to little more than cliques. Seems to me that if Peculiar Mormyrid magazine printed a piece criticising the term, it would be immediately rejected regardless of how well-research or articulate it was. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list the sources that you consider to be "fashion blogs"? Di (they-them) (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except the "Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute" (which I assume your alluding to here) isn't cited in the article. Reliable sources are. We fundamentally trust RSs more than editors own judgment (and have for 20 yrs). Of course more reliable sources may come along and change the balance of the articles tone. But again that is not an argument for deletion (I will, for a third time, link WP:NOTCLEANUP in hopes you might click it this time) Please stop having content discussions unrelated to the AFD.

Blogs are opinion pieces with very little oversight posted online, and your evidence that say Dazed, a lifestyle magazine with an editorial team, and whose article isn't listed as an opinion piece fits your definition here? And then maybe do that for all the other articles your out of hand dismissing as blogs here. Many thanks in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the most glaring issues with the article is that it represents descriptor of a history which does not exist. It is misinformation. It in is an invented neologism and concept from 2017. In the 19th Century, colonial scholars invented the notion of an Oriental Style - doing so did not make such a style exist since, the art and culture of Turkey, India, China, Japan, etc., were never "one thing." What we report now is on "Orientalism," - the nonsense in itself. The concept of Frutiger Aero is similarly nonsense because it imputes onto existing and real brand guides of the early 20's a kind of Utopian aesthetic master plan or vision, which is false. You can read real sources about what Windows Aero or Mac Aqua were about. How do you dismiss the evidence of actual design history?

Based on the tone I've received so far in the comments I fully expect you to dismiss this very basic obvious factual evidence as "original research" on my part. To have any reason not to agree would be "original research." The better articles like the Guardian report on Frutiger Aero as a contemporary retrospective aesthetic, not a historical one, but of course, the editors here refuse to abide by that editorial direction because they are pushing an agenda. Fine - if you believe Frutiger Aero is verifiable, explain to me what would prove to you that it represents a mistaken understanding of design history? For my part - show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away. I maintain that it is sufficient to add to the Frutiger Aero section of Windows Aero to note a minor pop culture fad in the present inspired by the operating system. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"show me one Art History Scholar that confirms the claims being made here and I'll shut up and go away" - That's not how it works. You're the one making controversial claims that go against consensus, the burden of proof lies on you. If you think Frutiger Aero is a hoax and does not exist, prove it with reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to stem from a content dispute between Seocwen and Di (they-them), which is not what AFD is for, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. In terms of actual arguments this seems to pass WP:GNG, Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of the article in reliability, notability, and original research is what's in dispute. It is not verifiable. Please address the talk page. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the deletion discussion so I expect, as somebody who wants to delete the article, that you will address the claims about sousing and GNG (a question quite separate from what the article says, per WP:NOTCLEANUP) here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could tone down the inaccessible acronyms and jargon for just a second (apologies, they don't teach wikipedia in grad school) what is sousing?

As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, are with presumed and Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "sousing" to be a typo of "sourcing". Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got cut off.

As to GNG, my issues, per the guideline, it is noted that coverage must be significant and reliable. That a named online group would publish an individually authored article does not meet the criteria for significance or reliability. Moreover, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". That aesthetics wiki would publish such an article does not mean Wikipedia must. Moreover, it's noted the sources should be secondary sources, not anything like Sofi Lee who made the term up, and the others who are attempting to create, define, and control it. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources in the article are secondary. Sofi Lee did not write or contribute any of them in any way. Just because you don't agree with the term being used doesn't mean that these sources aren't reliable or secondary. As for "indiscriminate information", there is none of that in the article. Everything is backed up by sources and relevant to the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes the general notability guideline and editorial issues such as the reliability of sources can be discussed (and are being discussed) on the talk page, not at AfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2, 5 and 6 are RS per Source Highlighter, so we should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, which sources are these? Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, Dazed and Pop. The last two have been evaluated as RS prior to being added to the database in Source Highlighter, so they pass the sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above- sourcing is lower quality than preferred but the subject is generally notable Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite claims above, precisely zero of the article's sources are 'fashion blogs'. - MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And here's a journal coverage of the concept [32] for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's neat! We should save that for improving the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done; added a further reading section with this paper and another essay. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found that Artnodes one, but I couldn't open it. Good catch. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole and Natalie

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Music, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. In the span of a few minutes, I was able to find reviews from Pitchfork and Fact (UK magazine) ([33], [34]). And there are probably more reviews than that, might look later. toweli (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean Up - The article needs to be improved by adding sources and removing a lot of fancruft, but it received a few reliable reviews in Pitchfork (found by previous voter) and occasional hip-hop publications (e.g. [35]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: here's the pitchfork review mentioned [36], I'll assume the other review mentioned is fine as well. I think we have notability Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it wouldn't load, but I see it does now, both look fine to me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash v. Childs Dining Hall Co.

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

The subject of this article is not WP:Notable. It seems to have gotten sparing citations in law journals (though far less often than it did nearly 100 years ago) and it seems like it's sometime taught in law schools (though I certainly don't remember learning about it) but that's it. The format is also very much not the standard for court cases on Wikipedia. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Covered briefly under various tort law books in Gbooks and Scholar, but most are snippets and only briefly mention this. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems notable in law. Friend v. Childs Dining Hall Co. is related to this case and links two articles comparing the two. The original author, Agradman, wrote on the talk page, "This case (ash v. childs) was very important about determining whether injuries like this needed to be resolved in tort versus contract." I think there is probably going to be coverage in some legal textbooks somewhere because searching for "Ash v. Childs" gets a lot of hits for study guides and homework help. The page is formatted like it's straight from someone's class notes, but the subject seems to be mentioned and discussed enough to be notable. A quick search turns up:

A big focus of: 24 Tul. L. Rev. 66 (1949-1950) Theory of a Case in Louisiana
One paragraph comparison: The Progress of the Law, 1918-1919 Civil Procedure (1919)
One paragraph: [The Theory of the Pleadings in Code States (1922)
One paragraph: The Law in Business Problems (1921)
One paragraph: TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - RES IPSA LOQUITUR AS APPLIED TO FOREIGN MATTER IN FOODS FOREIGN MATTER IN FOODS (1932)
A paragraph in a note: A Note on the Civil Remedies of Injured Consumers (1933)
Discussed in: Sales: Liability for the Presence of Mice and Other Uncommon Things in FoodThings in Food (1919)
Mentioned and cited: Sales. Warranties. Implied Warranty by Restaurateur of Wholesomeness of Food (1919)
Cite in footnotes: Implied Warranties of Wholesomeness again (1920)
Cited in footnote: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/molr31&div=25&id=&page=
Cited in footnotes: A Note on the Civil Remedies of Injured Consumers (1933)
Cited in footnote: Res Ipsa Loquitur: Its Nature and Effect (1935)
Cited in footnote: What is "Fit to Eat" -- The Reasonable Expectation Test (1968)

Also, would someone notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Law? I don't want to come off as canvassing since I'm writing a !vote. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There is a body of literature on the law relating to "unwholesome" food (as some if the sources call it). That is the parent topic of which this decision is an indispensible part. James500 (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per James500 and Wcquidditch, and WP:HEY, although I would prefer that someone add in the citations found to the article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll do some research on this tonight and tomorrow afternoon. I've found some things just need a little time to put it together. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Ciganlija

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

Mainly uncited and seemingly vandalised. Perhaps it could be merged in to create a "neighborhoods of Belgrade" article, as, seemingly after 7+ years being marked with onesource, it still remains with only one source. NeoJade ^{( Talk | Contribs )} • she/they 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NeoJade ^{( Talk | Contribs )} • she/they 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + we need more sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Боки ☎ ✎ 23:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After a little more reading, I think this may not even pass WP:GNG, searching for the town has on several occasions not brought any results for me. I am still of the belief a merge with a more general "Neighborhoods of Belgrade" could be and should be the way forward as it allows this article to still exist as a redirect, therefore not affecting anything that links here, and also allows for bigger and smaller towns to be on Wikipedia as the neighborhoods are notable as a group, yet probably not individually.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Iqbal Memon

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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject does not seem to be notable enough for a standalone article, and coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. 4 sources on the page and not any of them have indepth coverage on the subject. Sources are either about infamous Iqbal Mirchi or WP:ROUTINE news on Enforcement Directorate trying to declare Iqbal Mirchi's family as fugitive economic offenders. RangersRus (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumor alopecia

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

There is only one source that talks about tumor alopecia and it only includes one small paragraph on the topic:

"Tumor alopecia refers to halr loss in the immediate vicinity of either benlgn or malignant tumors of the scalp. Synngomas, nerve sheath myxomas, and steatocystoma multiplex are benign tumors that may be lim~ted to the scalp and cause alopecia. Alopecia neoplastica 1s the designation glven to halr loss from metastatic tumors, most often from breast or renal carcinoma."^[1]

^ James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

The source provided is a tertiary source I believe so this doesn't have any secondary sources covering it. Also this page reads like a dictionary definition. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath, a medical school textbook (which is what's cited there) is generally considered an ideal source in MEDRS terms.

I also wonder whether you're focusing too closely on the exact name given in that one source, when the subject (i.e., hair loss in the immediate vicinity of either benign or malignant tumors of the scalp) might have other names. One of the two sources in ==Further reading== on that page talks about "neoplasm-related alopecia" and the other is about "Alopecia due to cancer". This review calls it "Hair loss in neoplastic conditions".

It would be undesirable to delete an article about a whole subject if what it really needs is to WP:MOVE it to a different title and add some more content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read over general notability guidelines and saw secondary sources and I think I may have focused too much on that. I was the one that added the further reading sources in an earlier search for some material on the topic. While the original source does distinguish tumor alopecia from Alopecia neoplastica would it be appropriate to merge the pages? I was able to expand the page Alopecia neoplastica a bit. Or possibly mention tumor alopecia on the page Alopecia and redirect there? I will search for literature regarding tumor related alopecia that’s not referred to by that name. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backdoor.Win32.Seed

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

non notable trojan, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Sohom (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgimo

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

non notable worm, a WP:BEFORE search yielded no non-listical sources. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bohmini.A

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

no non-listical credible RS found on WP:BEFORE. Seems non-notable Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Sohom (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimia Alizadeh vs Nahid Kiani

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

The article attempts to be a WP:SPINOFF from Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg but nothing that is mentioned here cannot be there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, Olympics, Iran, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added content and WP:RS that supports the article. This article is specific to not only an event within Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg, but also the prior tournament, the background and events surrounding the bout including the censorship, as well as reactions. Having all of this information placed within the Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg article is unbefitting and WP:UNDUE.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources available are enough to have notability. As with any highly trending event at the Olympics, they should have their own article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary WP:CFORK. The match is not worthy of a standalone page and the info can be easily be added in the header of [Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg]. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, it would be WP:UNDUE to redirect/delete it as the article isn't just about the match, but also includes the prior match, the reactions, aftermath, censorship, etc., and the article is noteworthy with WP:RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary WP:CFORK, all of the content can be covered adequately elsewhere. Of the text in the article:

The fact that it's a rematch of a 2020 match is somewhat trivial
Kiani won the silver medal, the latter being the first for an Iranian woman at the Olympics, surpassing Alizadeh's 2016 bronze feat can be mentioned at her article and/or Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics
While Kiani competed for the Iranian team, Alizadeh competed for the Bulgarian team after having represented the Refugee Olympic Team at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and Iran at the 2016 Summer Olympics where she became the first Iranian female medalist at the Olympics. can be covered in Kiani's article and the relevant "Team X at the Y Summer Olympics" articles.
Alizadeh became Bulgaria's first-ever taekwondo competitor at the Olympics, and won Bulgaria's first medal in Olympic taekwondo can be mentioned at Bulgaria at the 2024 Summer Olympics.
"Aftermath" section can be mentioned in either the event article, this can be added to Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics.

In summary, none of this content needs a separate spinoff article for one match. And there is no one sensible merge target. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent summation by Joseph2302. I do believe this does not deserve its own WP article as is seems like WP:NOTNEWS. I do think there's material there that can be put into existing articles--especially since they're both individually notable. I'm just not sure where the best fit is for all the information. Papaursa (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Edge (Andy Duguid album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 23:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Germany, and Scotland. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I didn't find any coverage or reviews in reliable sources. I'm not sure if Andy Duguid himself is even notable. toweli (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not opposed to a redirect.) toweli (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can someone please enlighten me why articles need to be deleted in the first place? This is a 4KB article with fewer than 40 edits containing a 89KB work of art. Will WP become better-off without it? Speaking of this "notability" principle: media normally ignores less known artists, thus even the best/better albums in terms of music, style, arrangement, etc. may be ignored completely because their artists are not promoted enough. WP contains a ton of info on Calvin Harris whose music is absolutely bland electronic beats with no soul, finesse, nothing and who is going to be completely forgotten 10 years from now. Yet, "notable", right? There are literally hundreds of thousands of article in need of improvement and you're chasing articles to delete? Whoa. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your requested explanation: Deleting articles about things that don't qualify for them is longstanding Wikipedia policy that the user community has developed for years and years. See WP:NALBUM for this debate and WP:N for general principles. For Calvin Harris, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. For other articles that need improvement, this is a volunteer community waiting for someone like you to improve them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Duguid: found zero evidence of notability. Redirecting to artist is standard if the artist has an article, and if said artist is also non-notable as toweli suggests then it can be challenged in a separate AfD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy Duguid - I can find no professional reviews or other specific coverage about the album in the reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE: “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information”, it should not be a discography database such as Discogs, Musicbrainz, etc. WP:GNG should always be followed. When the album doesn’t meet the required notability, it shouldn’t have a standalone page. No significant coverage of the album by reliable independent sources could be found. Nihonjinatny (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the page of the albums creator Andy Duguid; I see no reason, and cannot find sufficient evidence, this album needs a standalone article. ResonantDis_tortion 19:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy Duguid. I can't find any notability for this album. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Park (novel)

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

Doesn't meet NBOOK. The book is also published under the title The Thirteenth Majestral. I have not been able to find any reviews for either title through JSTOR, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, ProQuest, Newspaper Archive, or Google News. I didn't even find a book listing on ISFDB. I suggest redirecting to the the author, Hayford Peirce. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hayford Peirce. There's about a paragraph in the September 18 1994 issue of the Arizona Daily Star but it doesn't say all too much, not a "review" (just commenting on the name change and Jurassic Park stuff). There's also this which confuses me - is this giving commentary on a location in the book? I have no idea why it's namedropped. Included here but not sigcov. It was translated into Italian but I can't find any sources under the translated name either (L'impero dei dinosauri). PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Warr

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search for sources in trove, google news and google books did not yield in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. In cases like this, speedy redirecting to "List of X cricketers" seems better than starting an AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and West Bengal. C F A 💬 16:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should fall under WP:G4 as the last AFD on this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election) was barely a few weeks ago, and the page is effectively identical, in terms of sourcing. I have tagged it for CSD instead. Soni (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 7 days without that G4, and an IP has already added sources definitely talking about the 2026 elections. Now I support Keeping the article because of said sources Soni (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Never transcluded
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basa Khonelidze

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

I can't find any sources with significant coverage. The best I find is some pages of statistics and mention that he scored in a particular game. Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Mgp28 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Georgia (country). Mgp28 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage by any secondary sources besides a passing mention in an article about a single game. cyberdog958^Talk 01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milkman Conspiracy

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

goes in unnecessary detail, skewed more towards the games favor, seems unnecessary for a article on just one level just for its humorous content, not well written, the contemporary sources are mostly magazines and they don't have a primary focus on the topic at hand NoKNoC (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only argument here that is actually related to notability is the sourcing situation - the rest are about the quality of the article - and it is just not true. Take a look at the following sources cited in the article:

--Alexandra^IDV 00:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. With respect, this AfD is extremely poorly done and mostly makes points that have zero bearing on Wikipedia.
1. "goes in unnecessary detail" can you provide an example of what detail is unnecessary?
2. "skewed more towards the games favor" Is this a discussion of bias? Because I included every source I could find that covered it. That it "skews towards the games favor" is a product of what people have to say about it, not the article itself.
3. "for its humorous content" That it is notable for its humorous content is not relevant to AfD or notability.
4. "not well written" I'm not a perfect writer, and am always ready to accept criticisms. Can you identify issues with the article or make the edits yourself to demonstrate them? Either way, the quality of lack thereof is not a factor unless it's WP:TNT, which this would certainly not apply.
5. "the contemporary sources are mostly magazines" What? No they aren't! And even if they did, why is this an issue?
6. "they don't have a primary focus on the topic at hand" While Milkman Conspiracy does cite articles about Psychonauts that also talk about the Milkman Conspiracy, there are multiple reliable sources that talk specifically about the Milkman Conspiracy level. Furthermore, according to the general notability guidelines, significant coverage of a subject can be found in reliable sources where said subject is not the primary focus of the topic. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Alexandra and Cukie. This rationale is severely misguided as notability has been established and none of the nominator's claims seem to align with notability guidelines. If there are quality concerns, this can be addressed editorially, but if the subject is notable, that does not warrant deletion (See Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes both development information and reception specific to the level (eg independently notable from the game itself). Masem (t) 01:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. This nomination doesn't strike me as anything except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. λ NegativeMP1 02:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[n378-1] James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

[1]