Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< November 22 November 24 >

Purge server cache

Megan Gilkes

[edit]
Megan Gilkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inactive racing driver with no notable success outside entry-level categories, failing WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Sources are routine (Formula Scout), primary (GB3 Championship, Formula One Management on behalf of F1 Academy), or dubious hobbyists (Cars Yeah, Norris McDonald's Racing Review, Motorsport Prospects). MSportWiki (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
W Series profile Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Primary source.
Cars Yeah Red XN Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blog post.
DriveTribe Green tickY Question? Question? Green tickY Red XN Social media platform.
Motorsport Prospects Red XN Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blog post.
Momentum Motorsport profile Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Company-sponsored profile.
Formula Scout Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? Formula Scout is a common source for entry-level motorsports championships, however none of the championships she has competed in meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT table of notability.
Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs – Ontario Red XN Question? Question? Red XN Red XN Automobile club of which the subject is a member.
Formula One Management (F1 Academy) Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Primary source.
Racers - Behind the Helmet Question? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Somewhere between Formula Scout and a blog post.
GB3 Championship Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Primary source from a championship which does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT table of notability.
Norris McDonald's Racing Review Red XN Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blog post.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Siege of Smoluća

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Siege of Smoluća (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
prolonged back-and-forth with a user who is now blocked as a CU-confirmed sock.
Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so
All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peacemaker67, are you still in favour of deleting the article? -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally we only relist a debate twice, but I am making an exception here due to the filibustering of the first week of debate by a user now confiormed to be a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tereza Bábíčková

[edit]
Tereza Bábíčková (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT having only contested seven professional-level races in a six-month span with a best finish of 12th, includes WP:FLUFF text about schools she attended and family businesses, sources are routine with half from the same site. Even if she returns to some level of professional racing, it would be at best WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War 2 (2025 film)

[edit]
War 2 (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to draft based on AfD discussion. Multiple attempts at recreation since that time with several of them being moved back to draft space. Now another SPA creating it in mainspace. Nothing notable about the production and not scheduled for release until a year from now. References are mainly announcements, but again, nothing notable about the production so falls under WP:TOOSOON. Recommend delete and protecting the title at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It has been disruptive and continues to be. The drafts need nuked and title protected. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the question of what to do with the plethora of drafts and where this one would go needs addressing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election

[edit]
1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see how this election is notable enough to warrant its own page. Like anything, elections aren't automatically or inherently notable merely because they happened (WP:NRV). I can't find any coverage on the election besides that D-R candidate Ashley became Lt. Governor, and that's it. There isn't any information on how many votes he received or why the election was unopposed. Basically everything here can be found on Ashley's page and the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri page. Also, the only source used in the article is OurCampaigns (marked as unreliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial_sources), which in my experience frequently provides incorrect information, including fabricating details and candidates. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem. For example on how OurCampaings is a bad source see this version of the 1845 governor election in Virginia and this version of the 1848 governor election in Virginia where the article, using OurCampaigns, says the candidate won unopposed with a single person casting a ballot. When you look at those pages now, with reliable sources, you can see that's not the case.

1824 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1828 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1840 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also marked with a may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline template)
1844 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1848 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1852 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1856 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1864 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1868 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1870 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep all. The nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE; or if they did not competently. In less than two minutes I found this on the 1820 election: [3] which shows that 1. It was not an uncontested election 2. There were three candidates on the ballot, one of whom (Nathaniel Cook) had a vote count just slightly lower then William H. Ashley. It was a close election. The current article is just wrong and full of factual errors. A major office at the state level falls under WP:NPOL and reasonably elections for politicians who meet WP:NPOL are all notable/encyclopedic because that office is deemed encyclopedic. Also this should be a procedural close because WP:SIGCOV on these elections is going to be different for each one, and this a procedurally a bad bundled nomination that would be overturned easily at WP:DELETIONREVIEW for bad process. 4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All as repetitious electioncruft. I tried to fight against these kinds of articles in the past to little success, so I am a little bit biased against these types. WP:NPOL is not about elections, but politicians. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Could editors arguing for a Merge supply target articles for each of the listed articles under discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aniqah Choudhri

[edit]
Aniqah Choudhri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline as significant coverage by reliable, independent sources is limited. While Aniqah Choudhri won a notable poetry prize and has some publication credits, the article lacks substantial third-party sources that provide in-depth coverage of her life and career. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, poetry prizes are a dime a dozen, as surely you are aware. Winning ten prizes in poetry mean next to nothing if the awards are not important/notable enough. In my neck of the woods, they have monthly competitions in short stories and poetry, but I assure you none of the winners merits a Wikipedia article. End game: Without sources supporting independent notability, we do not have an article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kelly Severide

[edit]
Kelly Severide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This characters a lot of issues that are still aren't fixed, so this is suitable enough to AfD it. Toby2023 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters

[edit]
List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, this is something i don't wanna do. I understand that Lucifer Morningstar (Hazbin Hotel), Vaggie, and Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel) have all been AfD'ed before and this redirect page is really useful, but unfortunately, looking back on this, this fails WP:LIST and there is not much to say. If you wanna create a list of characters, it must discuss about the characters in groups, not standalone. I couldn't find any that discuss the characters in groups.

Again, this is something i do not wanna do, but i can't find any sources that discuss the characters in groups or anything useful, i don't know if a useful redirect target would be Hazbin Hotel#Voice cast or Helluva Boss#Voice cast or it should be deleted, whatever it is, it doesn't meet WP:LIST. Toby2023 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss, as both of these shows are covered here. The characters seem to have a lot of fluff that can likely be trimmed down and fit into the respective main articles. I feel Vaggie and Lucifer's Receptions can also likely be trimmed down extensively and slotted somewhere into their show's, especially since many of the sources are sourced to trivial mentions, content farms, or lower-end sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surly Squirrel

[edit]
Surly Squirrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources are movie reviews and not about the character, this article shouldn't exist in the first place. Toby2023 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia women's national under-21 volleyball team

[edit]
Indonesia women's national under-21 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing, Indiana

[edit]
Pershing, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once again we have an argument between Baker and the maps, because the latter indicate this to be an Erie Railroad station; all that's around it are several farmsteads, but nothing that says "town". The eponymous bridge is actually a mile and a half north of town, or at least, it used to be before it collapsed. Once again, a county history would have been nice, but as it is, I can't verify this. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest fathers

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
List of youngest fathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an encyclopedic topic for a list. Previously deleted at AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers). Highly misleading in its current form, which only cherry picks mentions among mostly historical figures and would seem to suggest that this was somehow associated with royalty, and as per the AfD, would be grossly inappropriate if expanded and populated. Not to mention that it's purely WP:original synthesis from sources that mention nothing about youngest fathers, and that the arbitrary age cut-off is nothing special, probably satisfied by millions of people. Paul_012 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion, Fulton County, Indiana

[edit]
Mount Zion, Fulton County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we have a significant mess, because until the GNIS people changed it, the maps all read "Wagoner" at this point, not "Mt. Zion". They did this on the basis of "The American Guide Series, Compiled and Written by the Federal Writers' Project of the Work Projects Administration." If anyone can get their hands on the Indiana volume, things might be explained better. As it is, there's no obvious settlement here, but there are two "Mt. Zion" things: a cemetery, and the "Mt. Zion Mill Pond", whcih indeed created by a dam that had to be repaired and restocked with game fish after a breach around 1990. There's no helpful turn-of-the-century county history here or anything else that illuminates this. Mt. Zion suggests a church, not a town, especially attached to a cemetery. And where did Wagoner come from? Again, there's no sign now of a settlement as such. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump.fun

[edit]
Pump.fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor quality sourcing, mostly relying on dubious crypto media sources. Likely not sufficient to meet WP:N. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Fayad

[edit]
Ibrahim Fayad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazar-i-Sharif–Kabul–Peshawar railway line

[edit]
Mazar-i-Sharif–Kabul–Peshawar railway line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article at Uzbekistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan Railway Project exists about the same topic. This one can be deleted. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of last survivors of historical events

[edit]
List of last survivors of historical events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is a good example of what Wikipedia is not about. Per WP:NLIST, a list should only exist "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." While there are a few sources of dubious quality that list general groups of last survivors together, these seem to rely on the existence of this Wikipedia list, as many include Eliza Moore, a once erroneous entry on this list. When her name was removed here, she stopped being referenced in these near Wikipedia mirrors.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Given the woefully broad inclusion criterion of this list, this list is. Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics. This list is, as it contains entries as broad as the last living player from the 1950 World Cup to the last living Currier and Ives staff member. WP:CROSSCAT also applies. Per WP:LSC, "as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." schetm (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The idea of last survivors discussed as a group is mentioned in reliable sources (see below) that don't seem to be mirrors of this page. We have many articles on people who are solely known as a last survivor (such as Ivan Martynushkin, Sun Yaoting), and this article is a meaningful grouping that is reported on in RS, even though the scope is indeed too broad. If the list is cut down only to notable people and has a higher bar for significance of the event (sinking of the Titanic instead of the 1911 Indianapolis 500), it merits inclusion.
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Leaf-Historys-Last-Known-Survivors/dp/161614162X
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=thesis
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Survivors_of_Historical_Events.html?id=9Nc4QQAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/history/info-07-2010/last_leaf_photos_of_history_last_survivors.html
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Leaf.html?id=TeXlURw0-w8C&source=kp_book_description PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, first: three of your links are the same book and/or a review of the book. Next, the second source is a bachelor's thesis (hardly a reliable source). Last, The Last Survivors of Historical Events, Movies, Disasters, and More is a trivia collection intended as a coffee table book (it says right there in the description.) Put simply, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. wound theology◈ 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NLIST per PlotinusEnjoyer. Like it or not, humans have a fascination with "last survivors"; even to the point that there is curriculum built around the concept across multiple unrelated events. The Last Leaf is clearly a solid book treating this as a discussed group. Interestingly enough this list became the subject of a piece published by the AV Club. Theres also lots of these sort of lists floating around the internet which (while not great sources for our purposes) show a general interest in this as a unifying concept, like [7], [8], [9]. Being the last survivor is also reported on routinely, so sourcing this list isn't an issue. We as humans record these things, which is why this list has so many WP:RS materials. There are also historical research publications that talk about last survivor narratives broadly which I think bolsters the concept of this being discussed as a group or set. One example is the excerpt: from a journal in google scholar Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a bit of a tangent, but I would not use Medium as evidence here. It's not a WP:Reliable source (see WP:MEDIUM), but more than that it has been known to plagiarize Wikipedia, so it becomes kind of circular to say that it demonstrates that there is interest in a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I already pointed out that it wasn't usable for our purposes as WP:RS in my original statement. The Medium (website) platform itself has a distribution on social media that is unlike wikipedia, and it selects content based on what they think its users will be interested in. That was really my point (it wasn't a sourcing based argument to include it). Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I know you weren't suggesting to cite it (not great sources for our purposes), but my point is that since they sometimes rip off Wikipedia, their decision to have an article on a topic can reflect the existence of such an article on Wikipedia more than a general interest in the topic. I know that they have plagiarized low-traffic Wikipedia content before. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you've actually read the links you've provided here. The "curriculum" has nothing to do with last survivors of historical events but is related to a documentary about the survivors of genocides in Darfur, the Congo, Rwanda, and so on -- something very different from being the last surviving member of an Alaskan board meeting and the sort of thing tabulated on this page. The "journal in Google Scholar" similarly has nothing to do with last survivors of historical events, but talks about the literary trope of being a "last survivor" of a nation or race or species (I Am Legend is cited as an example in the paper.) Other than The Last Leaf, nothing you've provided here is a solid source; furthermore, evidence that people show a general interest in a topic does not mean we should have an article on said topic. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia.
    The simple fact of the matter here is this list is far too broad to be of any use and the major examples that are note worthy are given elsewhere. wound theology◈ 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, lists the issues of a barely/non-notable magazine and card game, unreferenced, info unencyclopaedic DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shazback. I concur that a redirect isn't necessary and not very helpful to those looking for the card game Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Textblock

[edit]
Textblock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single sentence dictionary definition cited to a dubious non-sigcov source that does not help notability. I don't think this is the kind of topic that can possibly be its own article. Not opposed redirecting somewhere but no idea where - maybe some kind of glossary of publishing terms, but IDK if we have that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would be some overlap... A redirect here is difficult though, because essentially the textblock is the main body of a book. This is a term that should be covered in the book article itself (which interestingly doesn't currently name the different parts of a book which I think is a fundamental content gap), as fundamentally books since the time of the codex can't exist without a textblock unless its a scroll. It's such a fundamental concept that to put it into the book binding article alone doesn't seem the right way to cover this.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair but it's not like there's any content to merge here, and it shouldn't have its own page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created this page, it seemed to me that there should be some place on Wikipedia that covers this significant type of object, but I also was not sure the best way to do it. Something like a glossary or significant chunk of the bookbinding page seems fine to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Corm II

[edit]
Charles Corm II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article was draftified to Draft:Charles Corm II in May 2024 because of lack of notability, but was recreated as a mainspace article by the author in August. It still lacks any evidence of notability of the subject, Charles Corm II. The cited information is almost entirely about his company, CormCo. Time for permanent deletion, in my view. Sionk (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly contest the deletion of this article on Charles Corm II. I have been covering Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent for decades. Dozens of totally non-notable personalities, including a slew of politicians and their children, have been included in Wikipedia with absolutely no respect for high-quality evidence, policies. and guidelines. Corm II is a notable person in Lebanon, beyond Lebanon, and in the global investment community. He built a $1 billion+ investment company and has financially backed several notable tech startups, which are now listed in Wikipedia too. He invests through CORMCO, the company he founded to that effect, and hence a large part of the article's focus is on CORMCO as it is the investment vehicle used to carry out these successful investments. Corm II is an investor and therefore does not get, or seek to get, the kind of media coverage Wikipedia usually craves to get. Failing to understand the above is failing to correctly assess the notability of this article. He is more than worthy of being in Wikipedia and I will defend this article as much as needed in what seems to be systemic bias against more discreet personalities and in favor of sensationalist articles about heavily covered nobodies. Kind regards. Caliban31 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Caliban31 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • :Agreed. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
Spiderone, please hear me out:
  1. I am not Corm II nor do I know him personally. I promise. I'm a fan of his late grandfather like many Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent. I heard a lot about Corm II and decided to devote an article to him. Nobody paid me or asked me anything. It was supposed to be the first of a number of articles I plan to author and submit for submission. Yes, I spent a lot of time on it as a way of improving my Wikipedia skills. As simple as that. Also, I have made many small edits in many articles on people, places, and events and I'm surprised you don't see them (I don't even know where this stuff appears).
  2. I agree that the article needs further verifications. I thank you for having taken the time to add your notes and I take good notice of them. If you give me some time, I promise to provide the references you rightfully ask for. Until then, please do not allow the deletion of an article that, once improved, deserves its place in Wikipedia. Corm II should not be penalized for my hastiness in drafting the article.
  3. I, of course, retract my statements. It was my way of stating the famous ''never assume...". I do however believe that people like me, proud Arab Americans, have ''no voice'' on Wikipedia and that pains me.
  4. I commend you for the amazing contributions you have made right here on Wikipedia. I skimmed your page and a few of the articles you authored, and it's truly outstanding work. I admit being an amateur in light of your impressive track record here and only wish to lean more about editing and authoring articles.
  5. Be kind Spiderman, it's a small world. I wish you all the best.
Truly, Caliban31
Caliban31 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know the name of his spouse, names of his children, which schools he attended and his DOB? None of this is in the cited sources. It's important to follow the policy of WP:NOR. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find sources relating to his grandfather (same name) but none for him. As has been noted in the article, many sources fail verification. The first source appears to have nothing to do with the content of this article. It's a republished technical report from 1991 (full text at Openlibrary), which predates this fellow's entry into business and thus cannot verify the statements here. Without more reliable sourcing this can't be kept. It does not instill confidence that sources that are obviously irrelevant to the subject have been included. I will cycle back to see if sourcing has been improved. Lamona (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, in fact, at present no citation even mentions subject, see source assessment table below, and I would be surprised if Kwatinetz (2004) and Huisman (2001), to which no pages have been given in the citations, mention him.
    The currently first listed reference:
    Ginsberg, Ari (n.d.). Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis (Classic Reprint). FB&C Limited. ISBN 978-0-243-07486-0.
    with no date and with erroneous ISB-number is an audacious WP:FAKE reference. The original citation is
    Ginsberg, Ari; Venkatraman, N. (1992). "Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis". Strategic Management Journal. 13. Wiley: 37–53. ISSN 0143-2095. JSTOR 2486351. Retrieved November 18, 2024.,
    but notice that the paper was first presented at the Minnesota Strategy Process Conference, October 20-22, 1991 at a time when Corm was 17 and still in high school. And it does, of course, not mention Corm at all.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Ginsberg, Ari. Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis (Classic Reprint). FB&C Limited. ISBN 978-0-243-07486-0. Yes Assumed Yes Assumed No Citation is disingenuous. The original article is Ginsberg, Ari; Venkatraman, N. (1992). "Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis". Strategic Management Journal. 13. Wiley: 37–53. ISSN 0143-2095. JSTOR 2486351. Retrieved November 18, 2024. Subject was still in high school by the time this article was published. ✘ No
Bushnell, Mitch. "CORMCO – About". New York City: CORMCO. No Subject's company web page. ? Subject's company web page. No Subject not mentioned ✘ No
"S&P 500 Average Return and Historical Performance". Investopedia. Yes No Citation is to Investopedia, a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher-quality sources instead. No Subject not mentioned ✘ No
Salameh, Franck (2015). Charles Corm: An Intellectual Biography of a Twentieth-Century Lebanese "Young Phoenician". The Levant and Near East: A Multidisciplinary Book Series. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-8401-1. Retrieved November 18, 2024. ? Yes Assumed, Salameh is Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Boston College. ? Book about subject's grandfather. Page missing, source not available. ? Unknown
Kwatinetz, Mike; Wood, Danielle Kwatinetz (March 15, 2004). The Big Tech Score: A Top Wall Street Analyst Reveals Ten Secrets to Investing Success. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-43665-2. Yes Assumed Yes Assumed ? Page missing, source not available. ? Unknown
Huisman, Kuno J. M. (November 30, 2001). Technology Investment. Boston, Mass.: Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-0-7923-7487-9. Yes Assumed Yes Assumed ? Page missing, source not available. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Sam Sailor 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. For the last time and as I mentioned above, I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop. I will consider further action if and when the vandalism and harassment against me continues. There is no justification for such behaviors against a newcomer to Wikipedia only wanting to contribute to the community but discriminated against because of that person's ethnicity and religion.

Vandalism: On multiple occasions, my contributions to various articles have been deliberately altered or removed without justification. This includes edits or articles which were reverted or modified in a manner that distorts the original intent and factual accuracy of the content. According to Wikipedia's policy, vandalism is defined as editing intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. The actions taken against my edits clearly fall under this definition.

Harassment: Additionally, I have been subjected to repeated personal attacks and targeted harassment by certain users. This behavior includes specific instances of harassment, such as derogatory comments on my user talk page or edit summaries, which appear to be aimed at intimidating me and discouraging my participation. Wikipedia defines harassment as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior targeting specific individuals. The actions I have faced align with this description.

Best regards.

Caliban31 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Caliban31 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

  • CU Note I have just blocked Caliban31 and Khalifa2024, who are the same person. Striking Khalifa2024's comment above, and removing the second bolded 'keep' !vote added by Caliban31. I have not looked at the article and have no view on the merits of the deletion nomination, but when evaluating this discussion the closer should note that for all the commentary above, so far only the article's author has opined in favour of retention. Girth Summit (blether) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the accusations of discrimination and harassment made by the creator, the only account actually in favour of keeping this article, are completely baseless. Despite several requests to provide sources, this is still a BLP with zero sources. I can't help but think that the false accusations are a deliberate distraction from that fact. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 4 is about his grandfather, not about this person. The rest of the sources are not about this person in detail. I don't find sources about this individual. Appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delia M. Sosa

[edit]
Delia M. Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker ? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary ✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1) No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker ? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary ✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here ~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing. ? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary ✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2) Yes Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes Why not? Yes Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage. ✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website No This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students. No This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
500 Queer Scientists No This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release No This is a press release No This is a press release No There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece. ✘ No
Them Yes Seems independent to me Yes For sake of argument No There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's. ✘ No
500 Queer Scientists No This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject. ? This is the same as source 6; nothing new. ? This is the same as source 6; nothing new. ✘ No
MedPage Today Yes Why not? Yes Why not? No Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece. ✘ No
USA Today Yes USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:GREL per WP:RSP No While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was withdrawn by nominator following promotion of properly sourced pre-existing draft in place of the nominated article. BD2412 T 22:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Utah law

[edit]
Murder in Utah law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, and draftification has been contested. A WP:BEFORE search turns up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that was the case based on the language you used in your nomination. I agree that moving to draft and requiring an WP:AFC review would be the best option in this case.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Qonto

[edit]
Qonto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business, PR, interviews. scope_creepTalk 20:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the first two blocks of references. I'll do one tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

[edit]
Rafael de Orleans e Bragança (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All three sources in the article are passing mentions in relation to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael of Orléans-Braganza. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Looks like this one could be a candidate for expansion from the French-language version.[16] estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Civil

[edit]
Asociación Civil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Muslim Sahil

[edit]
Ex Muslim Sahil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Music Network

[edit]
The Hit Music Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I stumbled across this article, which cites no sources and contains large dollops of apparent WP:OR. I tried to find some sources to back up the information presented, but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in the UK press, nor the specialist media press. There are a few passing mentions of the Hit Music Network on Radio Today, but no significant coverage specifically about it. The very generic name doesn't help, as there's a lot of coverage of other "hit music [radio] networks" worldwide, but I'm not sure this relatively short-lived "network" warrants an article beyond the articles for the stations contained within it. Flip Format (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jelping-Ja-Oyka

[edit]
Jelping-Ja-Oyka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this is a hoax article. I can find no source for Jelping-Ja-Oyka and the ones I did find use this article as a source. Additionally, the link listed in the article, aside from not looking reliable, does not even mention "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Article has been marked as unsourced since 2021. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax (unless a very deep one, several decades old) – rather just a case of an obscure topic in a language which does not use the latin alphabet for writing. The name(s), in Russian, seem to be 'Консыг-Ойка' and 'Ялпус-ойка'. Here's the Russian: wikipedia page for it. The source it uses is this (last column on page 545). Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking to a figure that uses a completely different name. Konsyg-Oika and Yalpus-Oika are not the same thing as "Jelping-Ja-Oyka", that is the hoax. The source you provided does not list the name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Nor does that figure Konsyg-Oika apparently have anything to do with Mir-Susne-Hum as the article claims is the case for "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Jaguarnik (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jelping-Ja-Oyka is how Alex Fantalov is transliterating the name, no? I'm not claiming him as some great authority (nor saying he's unreliable), but his page predates wikipedia, so it's certainly not the case that the information originated here. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has no basis in the text written on that site in Russian: "антагонистом Мир-Сусне-Хума был Консыг-Ойка - “Когтистый Старик”, дух Медведя. (The antagonist of Mir-Susne-Hum was Konsyg-Oyka - the "Old Man With Claws", spirit of bear.) Jelping-Ja-Oyka seems to be something invented by the translator. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this just shows that these two are clearly the same, no? And that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is just Fantalov's transliteration? This would be like deleting a page on "Akhilleus" because we can only find sources talking about "Achilles"; they're just different transliterations. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. First, there is no indication that Alex Fantalov (or the site provided) is a reliable source. I've looked for who he is in both Russian and English and as far as I can tell he primarily works as an artist (the whole site is dedicated to his art). Second, the translation of that source is not good at all, there are multiple errors and additions that don't exist in the Russian original. The translation cannot be considered reliable. Third, "Akhilleus" and "Achilles" are far more similar to each other than "Konsyg-Oyka" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" are. The comparison does not work. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I wouldn't suggest that Fantalov is a reliable source, nor that we ought to be citing him in the article, so his reliability or lack thereof isn't really important. All I was saying is that his website explains where the name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is coming from; it's just Fantalov's transliteration of "Консыг-Ойки", which is the actual subject of the article, no matter which transliteration is used, and is the same figure referred to in the dictionary given above, so the figure clearly isn't a hoax. "Konsyg-Oyka" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" are both just transliterations of "Консыг-Ойки", just as "Akhilleus" and "Achilles" are both transliterations of "Ἀχιλλεύς", so the comparison is apt. Unless you're suggesting that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" isn't Fantalov's transliteration of "Консыг-Ойки"? But the Russian, containing "Консыг-Ойки", is given just above. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the page should be moved then. But you agree that the actual mythological figure is the same, right? – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if more reliable sources can be found. If it's just one paragraph in a dictionary I would delete the page. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fair enough. I think Endlesspumpkin's point was just that the page is not a hoax. Now that we know it isn't, the question is one of WP:SIGCOV. I think I've found this figure elsewhere, though, since the sources are in languages I don't speak, I want to make sure they're referring to the same figure before listing them below (which I'll hopefully do shortly). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Free Internet Chess Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references that are presently in the article aren't reliable sources, and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions in, for example, Nature ([17], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([18], "The Free Internet Chess Server (freechess.org) says that it has more than 300,000 users."), but nothing more substantial. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like Linkrot has slain several of the URLs proposed in the prior AfD 14 years ago. Were you able to find anything for those using the Internet Archive? Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the beginning of the New Straits Times article is visible ([19]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([20]) doesn't contain significant coverage of FICS. freechess.50webs.com isn't a reliable source, and the rest of the links aren't specific, just being search results. toweli (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is going to be a tough one. The subject is an internet service that started in the earliest days of the web, for which a lot of the sourcing would be web-based, but which reached peak popularity in the era most affected by linkrot. For a bit of history, first there was the Internet Chess Server. The ICS effectively split in two when someone decided to try to commercialize it, forming the subscription-based Internet Chess Club. FICS was started by ICS developers/users who wanted to commit to having a free place to play chess on the internet (this was long before chess.com, lichess, etc.). In the late 90s and early 00s, both ICC and FICS were known by basically every English-speaking internet-connected chess player, and it would be shocking if there weren't enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but linkrot is indeed a concern. In addition to various brief mentions, presence in lists, etc., I see it's been used for several studies e.g. dois 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008367, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005961, and Picussa, J., Ferreira, M. V. R., García, L. S., Direne, A. I., Bueno, J., & Hallberg, G. B. (2007). A User-Interface Environment for an Online Educational Chess Server. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, 252–257 (no DOI), which are all available through TWL. Also, I'm not sure Chess Life and other prominent chess publications have ever been fully digitized/searchable, and they would certainly have a few articles that deal with it. At the end of the day, we need notability based on extant sources but we also need enough accessible sources to write an article. While my sense of the subject leads me to !vote Keep, I'd generally add that if accessible sources can't be find, this is at least a Not delete for being an obvious candidate to merge into the Internet Chess Server article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This is precisely what I was suspecting/getting at with my above questioning, although I've never been an online chess player. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Just a note that it is important to search in chess source by the acronym FICS as well as by the complete name to see all text referring to the Free Internet Chess Server. There is coverage in the following books (some are in snippet view but the "FOUND INSIDE" view on the search page was promising) and journals: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4meter4's slapdash citing of trivial coverage is precisely not how AfDs are supposed to operate. Rather than saying there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, we should confirm which ones, if any, are significant. From that list it is not confirmable whether SIGCOV exists, and the fact that most are clearly trivial makes me lose faith in whether 4meter4 has actually checked before making that claim. People are free to recreate the page afterwards as a redirect if they add some info from a reliable source to Internet chess server, but there does not seem to be anything to merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Rhodo's sources? Plus, I sampled 4 sources, and all of them had a few paragraphs of significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Being used for studies" does not constitute significant coverage. Whatever the study is researching is what is being covered there, rather than the tools used to accomplish the research. As for the SIGCOV it would help if you said which specific sources, since almost everything I noted was trivial or I could not access enough to determine whether there was sufficient content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I misread Rhodo's sources, sorry about that.
    [8], for example. 3 paragraphs describing what it is (and in a major instructional book). It addresses the subject directly and in detail enough to extract the information without OriginalResearch, thus it is SigCov. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I want to provoke you into a delete !vote, all I have to do is cite a bunch of random trivial mentions? I'm sure that's not really the case, but it sounds like you're objecting to what you consider to be an undisciplined source search rather than the notability of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International School (Panama)

[edit]
Oxford International School (Panama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL,should be redirected to The Oxford School (Panama) as an article already exists. Jinnllee90 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley Rader

[edit]
Ripley Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet general notability guidelines. It lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources and appears an attempt to promote their brand. The article was previously draftified and later recreated with unnecessary disambiguation. This change does not appear to address the notability concerns, and instead, it seems to circumvent previous review processes. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2M (DOS)

[edit]
2M (DOS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sources to support notability, but I did find a failed merge proposal for this page as well as some baseless assertions that the subject is notable.

To be clear, if you're voting Keep, we need to see specific citations to reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Strip famine

[edit]
Gaza Strip famine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article discusses the risk of a potential future famine in the Gaza Strip. Reliable sources warn of the risk of famine, not an actual famine, so the subject fails the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:Notability. Unless reliable sources report that an actual famine materializes in Gaza, this material is better suited for the food and water section of Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), not a standalone article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination, the WP:SCOPE is given by the title and the first sentence "The population of the Gaza Strip is at high risk of famine as a result of Israeli airstrikes during the Israel–Hamas war and an Israeli blockade, including of basic essentials and humanitarian aid.[1][2][3] Furthermore, nominator themself states he article discusses the risk of a potential future famine in the Gaza Strip. Reliable sources warn of the risk of famine, not an actual famine. Notability is not even in question, it seems nominator objects to the article title, that needs an RM not an AfD, and there are already two failed attempts in that respect. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ridiculous nomination". What is wrong with you? You encouraged me to submit the AfD. Stonkaments (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that if you believed your own words, then you should do that. Of course, I didn't actually expect that you would but I am forever surprised by what editors do on WP. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I not believe the words that I write? WP:Assume good faith. It's patently absurd to describe the risk of an impending famine as the "Gaza Strip famine", in Wikivoice. Stonkaments (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already explained the WP:SCOPE, the article does not assert that there is a famine, just that there is a high risk of one. That doesn't mean the title is wrong provided that there are sourced references to famine (real or potential, doesn't matter) and there are indeed plentiful such references. Furthermore, the PM of Israel now has an arrest warrant out on him for using starvation as a weapon of war. The problem is you think the article title is a statement of fact, it isn't, it's just a title, which is not POV as long as there is appropriate sourcing discussing famine, which there is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GFISNOT means that editors should start with the belief that others are trying to improve Wikipedia, not that we have to assume that anyone believes what they're saying. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Knutson, Jacob (11 April 2024). "U.S. aid official says famine has begun in northern Gaza". Axios. Archived from the original on 12 April 2024. Retrieved 24 April 2024.
  2. ^ "The Guardian view on famine in Gaza: a human-made catastrophe". The Guardian. 19 March 2024. Archived from the original on 10 May 2024. Retrieved 22 March 2024.
  3. ^ "Imminent famine in northern Gaza is 'entirely man-made disaster': Guterres". UN News. 18 March 2024. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 3 April 2024.

Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India

[edit]
Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. I'm requesting a more lengthy & thorough review of this to provide a bit of guidance for many like this that are sitting in the old part of NPP que. Under similar ones I've seen somebody just saying "coverage probably exists" without providing it, and without even arguing (much less establishing) that GNG coverage exists or that it is coverage of this topic. (not of something which just might fall under this topic, and not of something that this topic might fall under.) My own opinion is that something that is at least close to GNG coverage on this topic (not necessarily meeting the strictest interpretation of what GNG coverage is) would need to be added to the article to establish wp:notability, IMO a sort of "middle of the road" practical interpretation. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of France (1795) order of battle

[edit]
Invasion of France (1795) order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested merge, with both parties agreeing this unreferenced page isn't helpful as a standalone article. Given the uncontested argument that it serves no encyclopedic purpose, and wouldn't improve Invasion of France (1795), deletion seems the best course. I also note that it was (re)created by a now-banned account. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Giménez

[edit]
Javier Giménez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability is weak (some would say there isn't even one at all) and I can find no WP:SPORTBASIC-worthy sources. I found ANFP and Soy Chile in my searches but these are far from good enough. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Schlossár

[edit]
Martin Schlossár (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another long-time stub of a Slovak men's footballer named Martin without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. He spends most of his career in lower leagues and only played seven minutes in one match at a professional level so far. Regarding secondary sources, I only found SME where he is just mentioned in match result. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ross (Australian sculptor)

[edit]
Anne Ross (Australian sculptor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Talented but by in-house wiki standards sadly NN. sources are passing mention only. Have done a BEFORE but see only gallery listings. Don't suspect WP:BIO. Her work is very very impressive, but not sure a wiki bio is warranted just yet. Would be trilled to be proven wrong. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see what you mean, that the works are more notable than the artist. Is it ethical to delete items from an article before nominating it for deletion? Doug butler (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our enemy is here, they are lying that it is America

[edit]
Our enemy is here, they are lying that it is America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violator of WP:RECENTISM. No sustained notability of protests ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarsh Gupta

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Utkarsh Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails WP:NACTOR, so fails WP:GNG. One ref, questionable, was added after the previous AFC decline, and it isn't WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 and 2 are not independent, source 3 has mention about subject quitting mtv show, source 4 and 6 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and Source 5 is passing mention about the subject about being first choice for the show. RangersRus (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's source 2 not independent in entertainment category? Reminder, it's ruled out as not entirely independent in politics because of it's Political Alignment with the current indian regime.[1] Source 2 isn't the passing mention as it covers the subject who's quitting the show also source 5 covers two actors who were competing for some film role, the subject is among them, how's that the passing mention? (Reminder: Article titles usually tell readers what/who the article is going to cover/who's the subject). source 4 and 6 which are from the same website are indeed ruled as questionable in most cases but looking at it's discussion here, you have to choose what to source as it's still trusted by majority, also we are required to read any questionable context to see whether there's any sign of WP:COI, these articles (4&6) which are said to be of 2015 have some quality and reliable information in them plus less or no promotion. I still think the article should be kept. ANUwrites 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 4 and 6 are unreliable for all reasons and that is why by consensus it was listed under unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources. You can discuss about the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page. When I mentioned about source 2 not independent means that the article is not independent of the claims (interview) made by the subject himself. Sources are recommended to be secondary independent. Source 5 is just passing mention and nothing significant that is needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A WP:NACTOR pass with at least 2 lead/main cast roles (ergo significant) in notable productions; existing sources (some presented here) allow to verify it. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Maharashtra. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Analysis. Note that in show "Kaisi yeh yaariaan" the subject was not a lead but played the character of best friend of the main lead.
  • Source 1 writes about the subject quitting the show by sharing subject's Twitter message.
  • Source 2 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
  • Source 3 is promotion and advertising the subject by sharing his Instagram.
  • Source 4 is passing mention.
  • Source 5 is passing mention about the subject being one of the contestant on the MTV Splitsvilla Season 8
  • Source 6 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
  • Source 7 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 8 has videos of different episodes of a show "Pyar Tune Kya Kiya" and the subject was in episode 1.
  • Source 9 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
  • Source 10 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
  • Source 11 is not independent with interview of the subject talking about his role in the upcoming TV show.
  • Source 12 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
  • Source 13 is dead 404.
  • Source 14 is linked to jio cinema and suppose to show overview info on fuh se fantasy web series but quickly jumps to another screen but nothing significant on the subject.
  • Source 15 does not even have an entry about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Two or more roles with verification of those roles is not what WP:NACTOR means. Two or more roles give us the presumption that there is significant coverage (not just verification). The coverage here is all churnalism, unreliable, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The serried history of this article, its recreation per nom and nom's source analysis are pretty damning. A search reveals nothing else of any great note out there, so if this is the sourcing we have, it's simply not enough. Time to SALT as well? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving the Mughal Empire

[edit]
List of wars involving the Mughal Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps I dont understand whats need of this redirect it seems as POV Fork and should simply merged with List of Battles involving Mughal Empire and that article should see some improvement.I certainly see that by this we are simply giving someone a peak level of confusion. Edasf«Talk» 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I couldn't find a List of Battles involving Mughal Empire article. There's a List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, but it doesn't cover many of the wars stated in the article. IdanST (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IdanST List of battles involving the Mughal Empire Edasf«Talk» 15:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right.
However, I see the article was changed to contain only wars redirects, with a 'See also' redirect to List of battles involving the Mughal Empire. As such, both articles fulfill different roles now, and because of that I remain on 'Keep'. IdanST (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IdanST It was done recently so, my problem is over. Edasf«Talk» 03:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two article deal with quite different subjects, and the content forking in the article was of recent nature, now previous version restored. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sutyarashi I don't know what one gets from such a disambiguation page but ol fine. Edasf«Talk» 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Oak, Indiana

[edit]
Green Oak, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Baker describes it as a post office, and that's what the maps and aerials show. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Latimer

[edit]
Ivy Latimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Existing refs are non-independent, non-significant, or non-secondary. Souped-up find-sources sans social media:

I see nothing here that is reliable, except a passing mention in the Australian Television Information Archive which is not enough to establish notability. Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My sole fixation on the article is due to Latimer coming out as a trans man on his since-deleted Instagram. I feel very awkward and invasive about my efforts to document and verify that fact, given that by 2020 he was clearly a private citizen, and I have no idea how he'd feel being outed on a WP page written by fans of a mermaid show he did years ago. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tengeg Neville

[edit]
Tengeg Neville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage, does not meet WP:NSPORT. Frost 11:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott (darts player)

[edit]
John Scott (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pip Blackwell

[edit]
Pip Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Farrell

[edit]
Ray Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Douglas (darts player)

[edit]
Steve Douglas (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Summers (darts player)

[edit]
Ken Summers (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung

[edit]
Wu Sing-yung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gutiérrez (footballer, born 1993)

[edit]
Diego Gutiérrez (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not possible to verify that this player played anywhere significant or meets WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Never played any games for Carolina Switchbacks. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Pérez (footballer, born 1983)

[edit]
Héctor Pérez (footballer, born 1983) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. First, a WP:BEFORE found no significant and independent coverage, only databases, namesakes and WP:PASSING mentions such as this, this and the ABC piece already in the article (which mentions him in a match lineup). Second, the international appearance for Paraguay seems false. According to NFT, the only Pérez who played that match was Hernán Pérez, a much more merited player, and think about it: why would Héctor Pérez represent Paraguay in 2011 when he has not been verified as having a club that year, playing once in 2010? Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokrzywnica-Kolonia

[edit]
Pokrzywnica-Kolonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by now long-inactive Kotbot, there is no equivalent article in the Polish wikipedia, and no reference can be found in TERYT (https://eteryt.stat.gov.pl/eTeryt/rejestr_teryt/udostepnianie_danych/baza_teryt/uzytkownicy_indywidualni/wyszukiwanie/wyszukiwanie.aspx?contrast=default) Kiwipete (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Kolonia Osieck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Łazy Drugie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wiktorowo-Kolonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gackowice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ciółkowo Nowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kamion Dolny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rokiejna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Somianka Zaszosie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosnett

[edit]
John Cosnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

[edit]
Archana Patnaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there additional support for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Electoral officer does not pass WP:NPOL, subject in any case does not pass WP:GNG. I can't buy draftification as there's no evidence there's anything more to justify notability, certainly nothing inherent in this role as a local official in a non-political role. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two weeks later, the only articles are still about her appointment. Therefore I don't think a draftify would be appropriate. Procyon117 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tararam

[edit]
Tararam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

[edit]
Michael Robert Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[50]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gosh everyone seems to be dancing on the fence here and it's as clear a fail as GNG as I've seen for a while. "Watson completed his PhD thesis at Goldsmiths College, University of London, in the department of Visual Cultures, under the supervision of Alex Duttmann, moderated by Howard Caygill and Peter Hallward." Oh the loving detail! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data based decision making

[edit]
Data based decision making (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable. Referenced to a very small number of academic papers from the mid to late 2000s/early 2010s, but I cursory searches don't lead me to any significant use of the term in the context of education. Article seems to be largely structured based on the ideas of the Bernhardt reference. I would assume these ideas were salient around the passage and initial implementation of the No Child Let Behind Act and not much beyond that. Maybe reduce to a paragraph or two and merge into the article for the law? William Graham talk 06:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G7 by User:Graeme Bartlett. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Anaum

[edit]
House of Anaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. The sources cited provide insufficient significant coverage and are mostly routine mentions lacking the depth required to demonstrate notability. Additionally, the promotional tone of the article is another thing to worry about. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nang Kalayar Aung

[edit]
Nang Kalayar Aung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer, as she has not even released a solo album or achieved any significant milestones in her music career. I could not find any reliable sources to support her notability, so she clearly fails WP:NSINGER. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nang Kalayar Aung is notable within Myanmar, particularly in the entertainment and music industry. She has gained recognition for her contributions as a singer and model, especially for her work in Burmese cover songs, which are popular among local audiences. Her popularity stems from her performances at live events and her presence on platforms like YouTube, where she connects with her audience through her music​
Myanmar Models DB
.
However, her international recognition might be limited, as most of her activities are centered within Myanmar. Her notability is significant in the context of Burmese music and modeling but may not extend broadly outside these circles without additional global exposure. For someone interested in Myanmar's contemporary music scene, she is a recognized figure worth exploring further. Waiyantunoo (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nang Kalayar Aung appears to be a notable figure due to her participation in high-profile events alongside well-known celebrities. In the context you provided, she is associated with prominent actors and celebrities such as Htoo Aung, Alinn Yaung, Kaung Myat San, Banyar Phyo Pyae, and Tayzar Linn Yaung at the grand opening of the 10th branch of the Thawara Win Sein Jewelry Store.
Being part of such an event suggests her influence or standing within the entertainment or public sphere. Her involvement with such notable figures and occasions indicates her recognition in social or professional circles.
check here Waiyantunoo (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony of Heaven

[edit]
Symphony of Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The more you look at sources, the more notability seems to be lacking. Many are based on band members' own words via interviews. Some other sources include articles written by band members themselves. Once you see past the notability mask smoke screen, the notability of this band appears quite thin and below meeting GNG. Also, the article was created by an undisclosed paid editing user. That editor appears to have a COI with this article. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a situation I've occasionally come across where an album might be more notable than a band. Season of Death has some significant coverage from HM, The Metal Resource, and Teeth of the Divine. That last one is currently being discussed at the reliable sources notice board. I noticed the review is written by the site owner, which would mean that it can't be used for any biographical statements. The site owner is a reputable music journalist, so that does confer notability to the album. however, apart from the album reviews, most of the other stuff I'm seeing is either press release copy, interviews from unreliable or self-published sources (which are fine for verifiable statements about the band but not for establishing notability), or COI sources (The Metal Onslaught and Indie Vision Music). I am leaning toward merge with Season of Death.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ABOUTSELF. "unduly self serving" is often black and white, but there's grey area in some cases.
For example, "first luxury boutique hotel in town" citing the hotel's page or "a 100,000 lumen flash light released in 2024" citing the manufacturer's website of a light sold for $10 on Amazon. The former is fluffing, the latter is likely objectively inaccurate. However, citing the hotel's page "is a hotel in town xxx" or the flashlight's manufacturer's as "a flashlight release in 2024" would pass for factual accuracy. In 99.99% of cases, that flashlight's page has no place being cited or mentioned AT ALL on Wikipedia though. I think WP:RS is a concept unique to Wikipedia. Much of the sources in Symphony of Heaven don't substantiate inclusion worthiness even if factually accurate. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basic biographical facts and album releases are fine to cite to the subject and those affiliated with the subject. But, if attributable to the subject, they don't give the subject notability. Verifiability isn't the same as notability. The flashlight hypothetical is a hypothetical and isn't relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)
That merge suggestion appears unsound though. I was only suggesting that be merged INTO this, because Season of Death is one of the many notability failing articles of Symphony of Heaven. So, that being merged into this would be reasonable if this isn't notable, but if they're both non-notable, then deletion is sometimes the sound option. Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Leaders

[edit]
Industry Leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.
The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.
When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sourcing here is very poor indeed. Tangential sources are used to prop up statements about companies mentioned in the article, bulking up the overall source count but adding nothing to the very scanty notability of this show. So we have a lot of content like "It has been credited with helping businesses gain exposure and recognition, as seen with companies like Core9" sourced to the Core9 blog. And this is by no means atypical. Sources 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are TV listings (and by no means unique in this - it's just wearying picking through the 79 sources in this article - almost all of which are tangential, non-RS, listings or sourced to the show itself. There's literally nothing there, the whole article's SYNTH, OR and in short a man of straw. And once again, we have descended into poetry... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Panama

[edit]
International School of Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not enough sources and it seems to be WP:NOTPROMO also has no significant coverage, Fails WP:NSCHOOLJinnllee90 (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius_Intelligence

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Radius_Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks notability; there is not substantial media coverage (WP:SUBSTANTIAL), and the sources cited are niche and industry-specific, lacking sufficient audience (WP:AUDIENCE). The article appears to be self-promotion. Similar issues were raised with the now-deleted article about the company CEO. Tripofmice (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convent Wood

[edit]
Convent Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This feels WP:TOOSOON and exclusively uses primary and unreliable sources, along with original research in the form of maps. You can redirect with Great North Wood which offers a broader concept of the topic. Jinnllee90 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Escuela Japonesa de Panamá

[edit]
Escuela Japonesa de Panamá (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing found in WP:BEFORE search that works. Fails WP:NSCHOOLJinnllee90 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American School (Panama)

[edit]
American School (Panama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not been able to find anything approaching meaningful coverage of this school, furthermore this article has no sources since its creation in 2015 until a dubious source was added a few days ago, fails at WP:ATD, Fails WP:NSCHOOLJinnllee90 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B & H Tool Works

[edit]
B & H Tool Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this in WP:NOV24. I'm not seeing coverage that would indicate a WP:NCORP pass. This is really just an interview with an employee. This piece is much better coverage-wise, but I'm hesitant to use an editorial without a byline to support a NCORP pass. This is partially a discussion with the owner and partially a statement that it received a grant.

I just don't think the above is enough to indicate a WP:NCORP pass. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently, this was an AFD in 2006 but I can not locate the previous deletion discussion. But this makes this discussion not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for locating that AFD, Hog Farm. I've noticed that in the early years, if there was no consensus, the outcome would be marked as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding coverage of the broadcasters of this league as a grouping from secondary sources to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Shazback
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1984 MISL Championship Game 5 Baltimore Blast vs St. Louis Steamers June 8, 1984 on YouTube ~ Uploaded by the club ~ User-generated content / YouTube No Rebroadcast of a game / primary source ✘ No
Woolf, Lee (February 28, 1984). "Regional Stations Sack Usfl Opener. - Page 4". The Free Lance-Star. Retrieved November 17, 2024. Yes Yes No Routine. Full text of the mention: "Baltimore's WJZ will continue to show USFL games each Sunday through the playoffs with one exception, this Sunday afternoon when the football game will be pre-empted for a Baltimore Blast indoor soccer match." ✘ No
MISL Baltimore Blast @ New York Arrows March 27, 1981 on YouTube ~ Uploaded by the club ~ User-generated content / YouTube No Rebroadcast of a game / primary source ✘ No
"Observer-Reporter - Page 17". Observer-Reporter. May 24, 1984. Retrieved November 17, 2024. Yes Yes No Routine. Full text of the mention: "Along with Ruan on nationally televised game will be Al Trautwig, the Blast's play-by-play announcer on WJZ and also the former USA Cable Network play-by-play announcer on MISL broadcasts, and Kyle Rote Jr., an ex-Dallas Tornado player in the North American Soccer League." ✘ No
MISL Buffalo Stallions at St Louis Steamers 2-27-81 on YouTube ? Pseudonymous YouTube uploader ~ User-generated content / YouTube No Rebroadcast of a game / primary source ✘ No
MISL Philly Fever at Buffalo Stallions 12-26-81 on YouTube ? Wrong YouTube link? ? Wrong YouTube link? No Wrong YouTube link? Not relevant to the article ✘ No
"LANCERS MOURN THE PASSING OF LEGENDARY ANNOUNCER WAYNE FULLER". Rochester Lancers. 12 February 2018. ~ Club's website ~ Club's website, appears to be republishing a template biography (same text as next source) No No commentary on broadcasters / announcers as a set. Minor routine mention that Fuller announced games for the Lancers ✘ No
"A SOCCER VOICE IS SILENCED: Wayne Fuller, voice of original Lancers, passes away". Front Row Soccer. February 9, 2018. Yes Blog / personal website ~ Blog / personal website, appears to be republishing a template biography (same text as previous source) No No commentary on broadcasters / announcers as a set. Minor routine mention that Fuller announced games for the Lancers ✘ No
"March 1987 Sting "Bee Lines"" (PDF). Fun While It Lasted. ~ Club's magazine ~ Club's magazine No Non-searchable PDF, no page referenced - best I can find is the following on page 13, which appears fully routine. Full text: "Next Televised Game. Follow the Sting onSportsVision and WPWR-TV CH. 50 with Howard Balson and David Huson. Watch the Skint live from Minnesota, April 7, 7:30 p.m. on WPWR-TV CH. 50." ✘ No
"Movies Supplant Cable Sports. - Page 22". The Vindicator. July 11, 1986. Retrieved November 11, 2024. Yes Yes No Article that could be relevant in the main article (or MISL on TV) showing commentary that MISL was interesting for cable sports channels that were looking to fill air-time. However, only extremely routine mention of one broadcaster for one channel, not significant coverage of this article's topic. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if the proposed Merge target is Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) on television. It would be nice to see what Let'srun and Giant Snowman think about this suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter albums

[edit]
Tha Carter albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources that discuss Lil Wayne's Tha Carter albums as a series or a set. A ranking by Vibe and XXL Mag is pretty much it. The albums have been released in a period over two decades, with not thematic coherence. This seems WP:SYNTHy and unnecessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian again is a ranking, best to worst. The Billboard piece is a listicle of "Black Music Milestones", is three paragraphs long and mentions charting positions and sales. Doesn't discuss the albums as a series. UDiscoverMusic isn't listed at WP:MUSICRS and mostly talks about the first Tha Carter, not about the series as a whole. Where do reliable sources discuss the Tha Carter albums as a series, beyond the fact they got the same title? What makes Tha Carter Lil Wayne's Berlin Trilogy? As a series, what is its meaning, its cultural impact, its legacy? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards redirecting and/or draftifying. It's probably a viable search term. Not sure we need a third fourth location beyond the artist, individual album, and artist discography articles to discuss it. If there is a need, this article certainly doesn't demonstrate. It's basically just a (incomplete) list of release dates and singles. Put it back in the oven and let it cook. These albums have been out for years. There's no reason someone needed to sloppily rush this out yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A completely unnecessary synthesis of four different albums that all have their own articles and are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common. An article that ranks them against each other is pretty much a trivia exercise for reader enjoyment; see this example of how writers can compare anything to anything without the items being a distinct collective entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's very dismissive. The artist treats them as a set, e.g. releasing specifically the singles from the albums as if they belong together[54]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[55]. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would releasing the singles together mean Lil Wayne treats them as a such "as if they belong together"? Could you elaborate? And while that would be interesting, an artist's own views on their work are secondary to how reliable sources consider it. The Vulture piece is more in depth though, but I'm not convinced as of yet. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first part was just a reply to the weird claim that they "are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common." The artist considers them as a series, as evidenced by the titles (duh) but also by specifically releasing the singles from these albums together, as if they belong together somehow. While I have no issue with the discussion about whether they are notable as a series and whether they should have a separate article or not, I was rather amazed about the claim that they aren't even a series. But the singles set is not an argument for or against deletion, the Vulture article (which you commented upon, thanks) is an argument against deletion and pro notability. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree all you want on whether or not it's a "series" but that's the wrong argument. That ignores the much more precise Wikipedia policy cited by the nominator and myself: WP:SYNTH. As currently written, the article has nothing on what makes the albums a distinct collective entity, and merely lists release dates and singles and producers and guests stars. All info is repeated from the respective individual album articles. Any media article comparing/ranking them as a group is trivia as said above. Many of the article's existing sources are unreliable fansites and blogs, and the few reliable sources are about individual albums or songs. Recurring lyrical themes are valid but can be explained at Lil Wayne's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about the sources in the article or the state of the article, that's not what AfD is about in general, unless it is so egregious that WP:TNT (or in less severe cases draftification) are the best solution. There are plenty of reliable sources treating these albums as a series (and yes, even ranking them means that people consider them a series, something related and comparable and at the same time distinct from the things not listed), and the Vulture article goes way indepth about them, treating them as a separate, important, aspect of his total oeuvre worth discussing as a group: "his Carter records occupy a specific place in his staggering discography [...] But what can looking back at the previous four installments tell us about Wayne as an artist? About how he’s evolved, and what his entire career means?" (that article calls them a "series" and "a project" as well). Fram (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my comment above is rooted in multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON, conceptually. There just probably wouldn't much actual merging because I imagine much of this was aped from already existing articles in better shape. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After searching for almost an hour, I thought there's no such thing as a "album series" on Wikipedia, but then I stumbled across this category and I found this album series. With reliable sources, we can actually establish this as a valid album series. Vulture's writers had a lot to say about Tha Carter album series; its meaning, ranking and so on. Many reliable publications ranked albums from the series, publications like XXL, The Guardian, and Vibe just to mention a few. One thing we neglect to acknowledge is that those rankings are detailed, they dive into the works and the makings of the album series, they are not just "1–5" lists. dxneo (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.

This helps people learn more about the Carter albums without them having to do much digging. It’s easier to just pull up the website that’s filled with reliable and important information about the topic (Carter albums) without the worrying about there being unnecessary information about other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwaikdoviwbwwko (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chato, Peru

[edit]
Chato, Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The one source linked is invalid and I am unable to find any source at all proving this place is real. Might be a hoax article. Jolielover (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt this article was made by a hoax, as it is made by a long-time editor who is still active today. Those types of editors rarely make hoaxes. Thoughts, @Bejnar? -1ctinus📝🗨 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there some way of involving Spanish-language editors on ADFs involving Spanish-language topics in articles? Searching for small towns / villages has is often difficult for towns in English-speaking countries and using English language sources. In this case, the search is further complicated by the need to search Spanish-language sources and using names rendered into English. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is now https://geonames.nga.mil/geon-ags/rest/services/RESEARCH/GIS_OUTPUT/MapServer/0/query?outFields=*&where=ufi+%3D+-341758 - it says it's the same as es:Chato Chico; there is also es:Chato Grande in the same area so whether "Chato" can only refer to Chato Chico or to both, or is a combination or both places or just an ambiguous name is unclear. The article should probably be moved to Chato Chico. Peter James (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, I agree that moving the article and name to Chato Chico is appropriate. A report on disaster preparedness said in its introduction, [translated] "The Cura Mori District was created by Law No. 15434 of February 19, 1965, initially consisting of the towns of Cucungará as capital, Pozo de los Ramos, Chato Grande, Chato Chico, Pueblo Nuevo, Buenos Aires, Santa Rosa, Fundo Casaraná, Vega Monteverde, La Para and the town of Chato." Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2020-2022 (PDF). July 2020.. Law No. 15434 sets out the borders, and says in part, [translated] "follow this boundary line to the summit of Loma Blanca and continue until you find the Tabanco road, extending to the Piura River bed, following its course, upstream, it reaches the point of the royal road that borders the town of Chato, continuing to the outer part of the urban area;".

I am not sure why the NGA cross-identified Chato with Chato Chico, but sources now talk about Nuevo Chato Chico in reports like Municipalidad Distrital de Cura Mori. Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2019-2021 (PDF)..

As an aside, the hamlet (case or caserio) of Chato Grande is now quite separate as it was incorporated in 2013 into a new municipality called "Almirante Grau" along with the population centers of the hamlets of Nuevo Paraíso, Ciudad Noé and Nuevo San Pedro. This nugget of information is found in the first report cited above.

It is possible that the town of Chato (pueblo de Chato) of 1965 is the Nuevo Chato Chico of the 2020s. I found nothing explicit saying so. But the town clearly exists both visually and in documentation. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't understand why there are doubts about the existence of this place. Google Maps found it in less than a second with a search for "Chato, Peru", and locates it where the article says it is. Athel cb (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

[edit]
Blue Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf College, Kent

[edit]
Woolf College, Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this college of the University of Kent, and added an independent reference confirming its establishment in 2008. I cannot see significant coverage in independent sources, however - the reference I have added has only one sentence of coverage - , and do not think it is notable independently of University of Kent. I originally tagged it with notability issues in 2022, and redirected it to University of Kent yesterday, but this has been reverted by another editor. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP: Woolf College meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions and should be kept as a separate article. A precedent for keeping articles on colleges of the University of Kent was set in the Turing College AfD discussion (2018), where the result was to keep the article. The discussion highlighted that Kent is a semi-collegiate university, and each of its colleges plays a unique role in student life, not merely as halls of residence, but with distinct functions such as administrative offices and college masters.
    Specifically, the Turing College AfD concluded that, like other Kent colleges (such as Eliot, Rutherford, Keynes, and Darwin), Turing College warranted a separate article due to its role within the university and the broader context of collegiate universities in the UK, such as Lancaster and York, which also have articles for their individual colleges. The same reasoning should apply to Woolf College, as it too is a functioning residential and academic unit within the University of Kent.
    Historical Precedent: Just as Turing College was retained as a standalone article despite concerns about notability, Woolf College should be given the same consideration. The semi-collegiate structure of the University of Kent supports the argument that each college has independent significance and contributes uniquely to the university.
    Consistency with Other Colleges: There is a clear pattern of keeping separate articles for colleges at Kent, and merging them into a single article would risk losing the distinct identity and contributions of each college. The precedent established in the Turing College AfD discussion supports this approach.
    Given these points and the Turing College precedent, I believe Woolf College should be kept as a separate article, consistent with the treatment of other Kent colleges. GreenALC (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP: I would like to expand on my initial points regarding Woolf College’s notability. While the college's primary role is to provide accommodation, it also hosts a variety of academic events, including international conferences and lectures focused on subjects related to Virginia Woolf and broader literary themes. These events contribute to the college’s unique identity within the University of Kent and enhance its cultural and academic significance.
    As an example, in 2018, Woolf College hosted the 28th Annual International Conference on Virginia Woolf, which brought together scholars from around the world. More recently, in 2024, the college hosted a lecture by Professor Rachel Bowlby on the theme of Virginia Woolf and the Property Market, demonstrating its continuing academic engagement with the legacy of Woolf and her relevance in contemporary discourse.
    This active role in hosting significant academic events contributes to the college’s function as an academic and cultural hub within the university, much like Turing College, Eliot College, and Darwin College, which have retained individual articles due to their distinct history, facilities, and contributions to the university’s structure. Woolf College, in the same vein, fulfills a comparable function and warrants the same consideration for a separate article.
    I hope this additional information helps clarify why Woolf College meets the standards for notability and why it should be retained as a standalone article. GreenALC (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect Per Miraclepine's redirect target below. I'm terribly sorry about this, because I'd rather this were kept but it doesn't pass WP:GNG on the current sourcing and there's simply nothing out there to get it past WP:GNG - which is the standard we are asked to evaluate even degree-awarding institutions against. Presumed notability is less compelling an argument for a relatively new institution. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does it or doesn't it meet GNG? Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far from GNG. Source 1 is a passing mention Red XN. 2, 8 (Kentish Gazette) I can't access (why are they linked through LexisNexis??). 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18 are by Kent Red XN. 4 is by a partner, not independent Red XN. 7 doesn't mention the subject Red XN. 12 is an announcement for a seminar held there; trivial, primary, and non-independent Red XN. 13 is a book edited and written by lecturers at Kent; not independent Red XN. 14 is an announcement for a conference held at Woolf College; trivial, primary, non-independent Red XN. 15 is a trivial listing for the same conference Red XN. 16 yet another trivial, non-independent mention as the venue for the conference Red XN.
Even if the Kentish Gazette pieces are both IRS SIGCOV, that's still only one GNG source when multiple are required. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants divided between Keep and Redirection to University of Kent#Colleges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations

[edit]
Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary split of Colombia–Nicaragua relations. In fact, I'm not familiar with any other timeline article on foreign relations. This page covers some incidents not mentioned on the parent article, yes, but there's no reason it couldn't be covered there instead — the parent article is not very long and would absolutely benefit from more context. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change my Delete vote to Merge, makes more sense — Maile (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no compelling reason to delete. No problem with the article cannot be resolved with improvements. As for the existence of these types of articles, here are some international relations timeline articles: Timeline of Hungary–European Union relations, Timeline of Japan–United States relations Mason7512 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between Keep and Merge outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge since the topic is not large enough to warrant a split. Do this without prejucide for other timelines; at the same time, the existence of other timelines is not relevant to the outcome of this particular timeline. Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Molloy

[edit]
Parker Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:BIO notability, most of the sources aren't independent of the subject. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder I'm counting 28 sources in that AFD, and its difficult to know what sources you are talking about specifically because they are not numbered. I suggest doing a WP:SIRS table source analysis here for clarity. You might also want to include the sources currently cited in the article as well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, i'll do that soon. thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Currently used in article https://windycitytimes.com/2014/06/25/windy-city-times-30-under-30-to-be-honored-june-26/ no presumably presumably no X Mentioned in a list of a bunch of people by this local newspaper
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/31/2014-trans-100-includes-cece-mcdonald-fallon-fox#toggle-gdpr no no presumably no X Mentioned once, seemingly because she writes for them
https://web.archive.org/web/20190203133449/https://www.mediamatters.org/authors/parker-molloy/382 no no presumably no X an article she wrote, not about her
https://newrepublic.com/authors/parker-molloy no no no X its just a link to their author page
https://www.salon.com/writer/parker_marie_molloy/ no no no X ditto
https://thought.is/what-its-like-to-come-out-as-transgender-at-work/ yes no ? no X article about herself
https://web.archive.org/web/20141104114234/http://parkthatcar.net/2012/07/16/oneoftherottenones/ no no ? no X blog post by her
Parker Marie Molloy (February 25, 2014). My Transgender Coming Out Story. Thought Catalog. ISBN 9781629210605. ? no ? no X dead link to ebook she wrote
https://web.archive.org/web/20150312125430/http://chicagoist.com/2014/03/02/interview_parker_marie_malloy_on_ca.php yes no presumably no X interview of her
https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/piers_morgan_grills_trans_activist.../ no yes debatable yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20201206162642/http://archive.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20140124gilbert-golf-inventor-suicide-website-essay-anne-vanderbilt.html no yes ? no X she's not mentioned
https://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/ no yes ? no X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20170914124936/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/3-signs-we-have-a-long-way-to-go-on-trans-rights-20150113 no no no no X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.huffpost.com/voices/topic/transgender no debatable X its just the topic page for all trans articles
https://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_happy_story_of_my_transgender_coming_out/ yes no debatable no X article about herself
https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-election-rallies-facts-kamala-harris-e906e990b5dcfe44b5e672336fe82b32 no yes yes yes X leads with briefly mentioning her perspective on sanewashing of trump and then talks about other people
https://archive.ph/20141108192631/http://nlgja.org/2014/transgender-journalists-and no no ? no X just lists her a particpating in a talk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/08/22/trans-activists-scrutinize-pvt-manning-coverage/ no yes yes yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220813/http://theweek.com/article/index/250110 no no ? no X quotes her amongst other trans people
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2014/12/31/transgender-teen-leelah-alcorn-death-needs-mean-something/4hw6uPd8NtjIbn8kAdyAbM/story.html no no presumably no X her commenting on something, not about her
https://www.autostraddle.com/let-it-go-for-the-last-time-trans-women-were-not-born-boys-255055/ no yes ? yes X briefly quoting an op-ed she co wrote, amongst other trans people
http://www.thetrans100.com/about/ no presumably no X just a link to the trans 100 org, she's not mentioned
https://web.archive.org/web/20150213020921/http://www.nwpc.org/2014emmanominees no presumably ? no X list of people who received an honor from an org
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108212634/http://www.lapressclub.org/Resources/Documents/Finalists_NAEJ_2014.pdf no presumably ? no X ditto
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/17/t-word-new-n-word no no presumably no X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/18/rupaul-stokes-anger-use-transphobic-slur no no presumably no X ditto
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html no no no no X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108213125/http://www.pqmonthly.com/parker-marie-molloy-elaborates-gay-dudes-can-just/17814 yes no ? no X interview of her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parker-marie-molloy_b_5077322 not really yes no yes X not really about her, author mostly talks about their own experience in response to parker
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time no yes ? no X doesn't mention parker
https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/about-the-word-tranny/Content?oid=19946137 no yes ? no X ditto
https://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html maybe yes probably not yes X perennial soucres describes boingboing.net as a group blog
https://web.archive.org/web/20160311044304/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/our-lady-j/rupauls-drag-race_b_5148719.html no yes debatable yes X doesn't mention parker
http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_498_-_rupaul_charles ? yes no ? X ru paul podcast episode, presumably paul talks about his opinion
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819021941/http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/huffpostgays-offensive-video-of-drag-queen-shooting-tra-1566525131 no yes no yes X short blog post it looks like
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/14/rupauls-drag-race-logo-tv-apologize-transphobic-slur no no presumably yes X an article she wrote, not about her
https://web.archive.org/web/20141029221559/http://www.glaad.org/blog/update-female-or-she-male-sketch-and-rupauls-drag-race no yes presumably yes X doesn't mention her
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/ not really ? no no X a petition defending her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calpernia-addams-andrea-james_b_5146415 not really ? no no X ditto
https://www.queerty.com/trans-violence-watchdogs-issue-advisory-warning-against-advocate-writer-and-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140903 not really yes ? yes X mentions a previous article about parker and then that were added to a list, that's all
https://www.queerty.com/park-that-attitude-the-danger-of-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140827 probably yes ? yes ? unclear on the reliability of Queerty. also not sure if its coverage of her is signifcant
from prev AFD https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/05/06/alaska-thunderfuck-apologizes-controversial-video not really no ? no X reads like an ad for a podcast she was on
https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2014/10/30/20923525/sl-letter-of-the-day-drag-trans-trans-drag not really no ? no X article isn't about her, author just asked her opinion on something
links to a bunch of websites that she writes articles for no no X these aren't sources
https://web.archive.org/web/20210623155424/https://www.glaad.org/blog/author-transphobia-perfectly-natural-asked-take-leave-ad-agency not really yes yes yes ? short article about Gavin McInnes that quotes a tweet of her's
https://windycitytimes.com/2014/05/14/chicagoan-writes-nationally-from-the-t-perspective/ yes ? ? no? X its mostly an interview, which would be primary source

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably wrong on some of these judgements but not wrong to the point it changes the determinations, i think. 0 definitely good sources. Also most of these, regardless of quality, talk about like 1 controversy from a decade ago TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm confused and impressed that someone would make a gigantic chart to evaluate these sources. Yes, many of them are bad or irrelevant, but so what? There are a lot of subjective judgements of individual sources that I do not share and I believe that Carrite's sources provided in the previous AFD establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrite lists three sources: source 1 isn't independent and is primary (it's mostly an interview of her, the information is coming from the subject), source 2 is from a deprecated source WP:HUFFPOCON (basically a blog post, no editorial oversight), source 3 i'd argue its not really significant coverage of parker, more of one incident involving Parker. Unclear if this site has an editorial (no about us section) or if this is just basically a blog post.
    Even included that, that's one iffy source.
    Also note these three sources are from 2014, not really sustained coverage. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep. We need to judge this by the best sources. The inclusion of additional primary sources is neither hear nor there when it comes to deletion. (Any truly superfluous ones can be removed from the article.) I think we can safely disregard the big table of sources above as it lists several secondary sources as not being so. For example, interviews are not primary sources (unless the subject is self-publishing the interview, I guess). I'm sure that this is a genuine misunderstanding but it reveals the entire AfD to be misconceived. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: If it is true that Malloy genuinely requests deletion then I do not oppose deletion on that basis. She is clearly notable enough for us to have an article but not so significantly notable that we must have an article about her, i.e. where not having an article would create a hole in the encyclopaedia. This is a middle position where discretion might be exercised legitimately. I am neutral on that, provided that there really is an unambiguous request for deletion. I guess that makes my !vote into a weak keep overall so I've updated it accordingly. If deleted then the article title should probably redirect to The Advocate. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what are the best sources? interviews being primary sources is based on WP:Interviews, since any information they give about themselves is primary and that's what the article is about TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources (I just added one). Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my !vote as I just saw on the article talk page that the subject wants this page removed. Funcrunch (talk)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ as withdrawn by the nominator (they did not use the standard AfD closure templates, which at the very least throws off the archival bot at the delsort lists) (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Flood

[edit]
The result was KEEP. WP:NAC: withdrawn by nominator. Thank you for your feedback, 4meter4. My WP:BEFORE yielded less, but I agree with your conclusion. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Tom Flood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG for not being the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources unrelated to himself. He also fails alternative criteria from WP:NMUSIC and WP:NAUTHOR because his works in these fields are not notable, except apparently for Oceana Fine which has its own article. This is a 1E author at best and can be mentioned or even discussed with due weight in the OF article. A standalone article for this author is unencyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 01:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nikita Hand

[edit]
Nikita Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, simply because she was recently mentioned in the news Nswix (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Hand is already done and adequate in the McGregor article. Spideog (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is in blatant violation of WP:VICTIM. The subsection already created on the article for Conor McGregor is sufficient. Whynotlolol (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamayim "Mama Shu" Harris

[edit]
Shamayim "Mama Shu" Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails general notability guidelines Nxcrypto Message 00:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pics.io

[edit]
Pics.io (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct? software for which no notability appeared to have ever been attained. I cannot identify a merger or redirect target Star Mississippi 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lupu

[edit]
Dan Lupu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as not notable - my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent sources to establish or support WP:NACTOR - the article as it stands makes some claims about acting awards, but I couldn't confirm these, and in any case the awards do not seem notable enough in their own right. The only substantial webpages about the subject that I found were https://www.cinemagia.ro/actori/dan-lupu-41852/ and https://www.filmneweurope.com/news/romania-news/item/108375-fne-europa-distribution-distributor-of-the-month-dan-lupu-transilvania-film but neither gave me any sense that there might be extant references that could be used to support notability. That said, it is possible that there are better sources in Romanian that I did not find, and if that is the case I would happily rescind my nomination. Finally, I note that the article has remained unreferenced since its creation, and there is no corresponding page on rowiki, which I might have expected if the subject were notable. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"