Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 27	September 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Finnish exonyms

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Finland. toweli (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AT-43

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

Defunct game that fails GNG. Has had no GNG passing sourcing for 15 years now, and searching reveals little more than fan sites wondering why the game died and is unlikely to ever be notable. Article is also an irretrievable mess of in-universe fancruft/advertising copy. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadwallon (role-playing game)

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

GNG failing game from a defunct corporation. No significant coverage from searching, and has had a "no sources" tag on for 15+ years. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rackham (company)

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

Non-notable corporation that fails GNG (no inherited notability from a product to it's designer), what little coverage exists is routine coverage of corporate changes and going bankrupt. Suggest redirect & merge of relevant content to Confrontation (Rackham), their most popular game. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paula von Hentke

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:No original research. Article is built almost entirely from primary sources like concert programs and theater performance databases. There are no independent secondary sources which address the subject directly and in detail. While I don't doubt that the subject could arguably meet WP:NMUSICIAN based on primary sources, the overuse of primary materials is problematic for its WP:OR. This is an example of someone who needs some coverage in secondary sources in order to be compliant with policies outside WP:N. We fundamentally can't build an article mainly off of primary materials. This is an example of where an academic needs to do some work first and get published in a journal or write something up in a book before we can have an article. 4meter4 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is probably someone who could pass GNG if you were a German speaking/reading interwar musical history fan who had access to period news archives. But no-one like that has shown up to put in some significant coverage, and the article creator got banned for fake referencing so what references are there are already suspect and might not be legitimate. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duanju

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

Non-notable topic - the MIT source does not mention the article title, and the Chinese source seems to be a primary source and/or blog. LR.127 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and China. LR.127 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXISTS I was able easily to find, for example:

Peoples Daily Overseas Ed., AV Market Ushering in a Short Drama Boom 视听市场迎来“短剧热 [1] explaining the phenomenon in many paragraphs
Guangming Daily News, A Taste of "Cool" and "Sweet" - Don't let these short dramas dominate your life 一味“爽”与“甜” 　别让微短剧离生活越来越远 [2] a Zhejiang Normal University professor commenting on these videos

If there are any concerns about these sources, feel free to say so and I will continue my search.

I don't think the Guangzhou Daily News source linked in the article[3] is a blog entry, since it has a byline and doesn't have a disclaimer about user-generated content. I can't see any way it would be primary. Did I miss something?

Not specifically directed at this editor, but I have noticed a lot of nominations for poorly sourced China-related articles which have substantial native language coverage. To be sure, the problem starts with editors who create poorly sourced articles on China-related topics. But these nominations put a burden on a small number of en.wikipedia editors who follow this board and can handle Chinese language sources. The burden (per WP:BEFORE) is to do a reasonable search, and I believe a search that doesn't fully embrace native language articles is unlikely to be a reasonable one. Oblivy (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid State Records

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

Redirect, or selectively merge into Tooth & Nail Records. It was disputed by one editor and reverted, thus seeking community input. The imprint itself doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP and not fit to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The nominator himself doesn't argue for deletion, and if a merge is desired, that is typically handled through the use of the merge template; there's no reason that this needed to go through AfD. The label clearly meets the sense of one of the more important indies as described in WP:MUSIC, and as the article's sources already demonstrate, it routinely gets coverage in the music press (which makes sense, since it has had several dozen notable artists signed to it). Since this is a sublabel of Tooth & Nail, I'm not terribly picky over whether it is merged into the parent label article or not, but since we very clearly wouldn't want a redlink here, I don't understand why this discussion was even opened. Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Record labels are not evaluated under WP:NMUSIC. We've been through this discussion a million times. This article is uanble to satisfy NCORP to have its own standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly have been through this discussion a million times, and it doesn't change the fact that NCORP doesn't make any more sense as an evaluative tool for labels as it would for bands (which are nearly all for-profit corporations). I am as tired of arguing about this as you are. Chubbles (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Village Pump if you want to see "record labels" classified into a different bin of SNG. Until consensus grants a change, it remains under NORG/NCORP. @Chubbles:, you said don't understand why this discussion was even opened. I would have been happy with the re-direct I made or re-targeting. This is the reason it ended up here for further discussion. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What in this particular case, would satisfy the NCORP criteria? I am aware of sources, primarily interviews, that cover the origins and history of Solid State Records. I would be willing to dedicate some time to adding that history if that would benefit the article and this conversation. Metalworker14 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Metalworker14: It's explained in depth at WP:NCORP. Amateur interviews and podcasts do not count whatsoever. Contents from interview that come things said by company/band personnel do not count towards notability, because that's not in-depth independent coverage. Please ask after having fully read the guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Subject is a long-lasting indie label, seeking to delete because coverage is primarily discussed in context of their signing seems silly, and actively making Wikipedia less valuable as a resource. The notability of releases from this label should contribute, not sure what we could ever find to make a label notable in the eyes of those who wish to delete. glman (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what we could ever find to make a label notable in the eyes of those who wish to delete I mean, Motown has multiple books written about it. More reasonably, Warp Records comes to mind as an example of a WP:NCORP-meeting indie label. Mach61 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We are hovering between Keep and Merge but those are two very different outcomes. I can say that, at this point, this article is safe from Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs

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

No indication of standalone notability. Hardly any coverage of the subject; notability is not inherited. (NPP action) C F A 💬 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. C F A 💬 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references (already found on the article) are stating that he is claiming to be the current head of the FLDS church, I will hunt down some more sources. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really matter. There needs be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in order to meet WP:NBASIC. C F A 💬 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CG5 (YouTuber)

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

I've done a source assessment of the citations this page, and it doesn't seem like this article passes WP:GNG, if we are to assume my assessments are 100% accurate.

As per WP:BLP, all sources must strictly adhere to the three core policies due to the sensitivity with these kinds of articles, and only two of this article's sources appear to do so. As such, I believe starting an AfD is the right path to take. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 22:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Arizona. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 22:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough good sources we can use for notability. Forbes is a contributor piece, so a non-RS. Source 4 is probably the best, but it's mostly videos the person has posted with brief text. Rest appear non-rs or trivial. I can only find Games Rant [4], which doesn't appear to be a RS per Project Video games. I'd be willing to use it if we had other, better sources. There just isn't enough here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sigcov. Fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Giri

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

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

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

References

^ "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources. User:Endrabcwizart, please remember to sign all discussion comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Triangle

AfDs for this article:

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

This was originally deleted in 2008 following a discussion, with the primary rationale being that this is a non-notable neologism based on a History Channel documentary. That assessment is still correct 16 years later. The sources cited here are clickbaity articles that all eventually end up back at the History Channel documentary or a more recent Travel Channel documentary on the same topic. This is a term made up by television producers to pick up views. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Geography, and Alaska. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article lacks any notability and is a clickbait neologism. Paul H. (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No serious media seem to discuss this. Plenty of coverage from our usual Indian news sources that don't seem particularly RS [5], [6]. The second one in particular is only written by "staff", so could be iffy. Odd that Indian media is interested in this, when no US media seems to be. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sourcing hasn't fundamentally changed, and is, quite frankly, surface-level musings with no in-depth analysis, and that all seem to end up repeating claims about aliens, conspiracy theories, and the possible involvement of a "man-eating monster known as a Wendigo". And that's just from the non-clickbait The Jerusalem Post. (It's also weirdly racist. Not that that impacts the notability of anything, but the Algonquin people have absolutely no connection to Alaska, yet the claim of "ooh, maybe Wendigos" is parroted, without question or explanation. Could that be because it's not an actual Jerusalem Post article? The byline indicates it was written by Walla! Communications Ltd. I have no idea about their reliability in general, but this article isn't giving me much faith.) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravieshwar Singh

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly WP:SELFPUB. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Fashion, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Tudehope

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

Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate; routine coverage is unhelpful for NBASIC. (NPP action) C F A 💬 22:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. C F A 💬 22:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tailored Truth

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

Fails the notability guideline for artists. The sources in the article that go into the subject in any detail look like paid promotion or press release copying; others have only passing mentions or no mentions at all. A quick look for more sources turned up nothing. It's also worth noting that the article was very possibly created for undisclosed payments. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Michigan. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. I was also about to nominate this for deletion (I didn't think G11 would be accepted since this went through AfC) with substantially the same rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned here [7], in one line. That's all I can find for coverage. Long way from our notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was one of the first pages I reviewed for AFC and I didn’t do as thorough of a check as I should have or would have done now. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Austell Golf Club

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

Fails the general notability guideline. None of the sources in the article are reliable or have significant coverage of the subject, and a quick look for more did not turn up anything promising. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Golf, and England. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathías Tomás

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

No independent WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages and team-affiliated sources, for this football player and thus no pass of WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Please ping me if I missed anything in my WP:BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Greece, and Uruguay. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kankanala Sports Group

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

Fails the notability guideline for organizations. None of the reliable sources in the article contain significant coverage of the subject, only mentions or coverage of related subjects. Looking for more sources did not uncover anything promising. There's also a concern that the creator of this article has an undisclosed conflict of interest due to the sometimes less-than-neutral prose. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Badminton, Handball, Motorsport, and India. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis

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

A couple of primary sources in the scientific literature do not show this topic meets WP:GNG, nor does it demonstrate that the topic merits a named reaction after the corresponding author. The current content is likely inaccessible to most readers. There may be some content that could be merged into β-Lactam#Synthesis. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of travel podcasts

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE unrelated entries majority of them being non notable. I would argue neither do any of the other "List of X podcasts" but I disagree with mass nominations. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Lists. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite their inclusion in reliable sources, I don't think all of the listed podcasts can be objectively considered "travel podcasts" rather than podcasts about history and culture. For example, The Bitter Southerner is not about travel. It turns out that this particular podcast does involve travel. Also, it might be fine to have "travel podcasts" that are not "podcasts about traveling". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: every entry in the list has a source that calls it a "travel podcast". Can you explain what you mean by WP:INDISCRIMINATE or indicate which of the four examples it falls under (NOTPLOT, NOTLYRICS, NOTSTATS, or NOTCHANGELOG)? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It best fits NSTATS but not really. It's more the fact that Travel podcast isn't an article therefore list of not notable thing isn't notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your deletion rationale that the list is not notable then? This list could pass WP:NLIST independently of whether Travel podcast passes WP:N. It's also worth noting that WP:LISTCRIT states that While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists. So not all entries in the list have to be notable and notability does not have to be the criteria for inclusion. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The library in Spotify/Overcast/Apple is pretty massive. If they're not notable they shouldn't be listed. But even some of the bluelinks are radio shows or authors, so I don't think this is really feasible. All of these lists of podcasts are problematic, simply listing a fraction of those available to listen to with no clear inclusion criteria. Reywas92^Talk 03:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Pearce

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

No independent WP:SIGCOV of this soccer player and thus no pass of WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Refunded after successful PROD so time for AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Missouri. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftify as an AtD (he is now a senior squad member for an MLS team so one would expect independent coverage before too long) although I worry we will be back here sooner than later if an editor returns the page to mainspace without going through AfC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkUKnow

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no sources. Article is in an enormous mess and has been completely hijacked to refer to something other than its title. WP:TNT. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see why this can't be covered under the main Ceop article. This is a former program, that's been renamed, with no sourcing other than primary items. We don't need an old article to talk about something else; this is either notable or it isn't. I don't see coverage for this defunct website program thing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Editors (novel)

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

Did a WP:BEFORE but I couldn't find enough to unambiguously pass WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. The first source is an interview, which seems questionable as a source of notability for a book. The piece is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure. The second source is a local news station, which I think is of questionable notability. The third source "Numlock News" is a self-published substack blog which as far as I am aware does not count towards notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could neither find sources attesting to the notability of this book or its author. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Forthcoming book. This is an exercise in naval=gazing. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: The book appears to be out now, having released on August 13 [8] [9]. As a side note, I tried looking up the praise from people like Taylor Lorenz and Omer Benjakob from the Amazon listing, and these don't appear to originate from any review that would provide NBOOK coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LawCareers.Net

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEBCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Whalen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Whalen

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

notability; apparent self-promotion LoveGermanLit (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see adequate sources here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not sufficient on WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. I don't know any film-specific guidelines well enough, but I can't imagine screenwriter for an art-house film that got only 6 credit reviews (none top prestige) would suffice there. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and worthy for expansion Tesleemah Talk 07:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though the discussion appears to be moving into delete, we're not seeing due diligence per WP:BEFORE. Arguments lack detail (especially from the keep !voter).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guy Finley

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no significant coverage of Guy Finley, his work or his teachings in reliable secondary sources. Most of it is blog posts and primary sources. A 2007 discussion ended with a Keep result, but the votes all relied on notability determined by Google hits, a Google featured link and Amazon sales rankings. These are outdated standards. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Spirituality, and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a great example of a clear WP:NBIO fail. None of the sources are reliable as they are blogs, and I couldn't find any other coverage of this specific Guy Finley (there were other hits but nothing of interest). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!vote I think most musicians deserve a chance Natlaur (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Báthory family (of the Aba clan)

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

The article seems to be based primarily on original research, and the sources are genealogical papers and personal documents obtained by the article author (e.g. this source) that ultimately don't prove the existence of an independent Báthory family. They instead attempt to link the well-known Báthory to the Aba clan. As a conseuqence, the article is in parts written like an essay and by and large lacks reliable and secondary sources for key points in proving the existence of this family. One of the more crucial sources mentioned in the article, a book by Tibor Báthory-Szőny, is an apparent attempt by the author (a designer, according to everybodywiki, but not mentioned anywhere else) to personally link his own family to the Aba clan, which does this article no favors, as it certainly doesn't constitute a reliable source.
In addition to that, the article has already been discussed and deleted on huwiki (where one sysop felt confident enough calling it a "hoax", later looking through a physical copy of a source cited by the author and finding nothing on the topic) as well as on several more wikis, where it was variously deleted as a duplicate or a machine translation. Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an important addition for those who'd like to contribute to the AfD: the author has left some comments on the nomination on their own talk page instead of the article's. Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of the article is not hoax, there really was a Báthory (or Bátori) de Gagy family (from clan Aba), but it was not related to the well-known Báthory family (from clan Gutkeled). See this source [10]. However, I am not sure that the conclusions of the article are correct. According to Pál Engel's genealogical work, Miklós Sirokai came from another branch of the Aba clan. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can't speak on the factual existence of the family itself, but the article seems like more of an essay aimed at proving genealogical ties with questionable sourcing instead of a fact-of-the-matter article that paraphrases reliable sources. I believe it would at the very least have to be rewritten from the ground up to reflect firmly established knowledge on the lineage, which makes it as good as deleted. Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa_1678.jpg Here is a photo of the genealogical table of the Báthory family, beginning with Count Péter of Aba and his son Miklós, the ancestor of the Báthory of Gágy line. This original artwork is dated 1678 and serves as a valuable historical document, illustrating the family's lineage and heritage. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa.jpg Attached is a large-scale picture of the genealogical table, which allows for magnification for better visibility. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong. However, I would like to present further evidence and academic references that underscore the separate identities and historical significance of these two families.

Distinction Between the two Báthory Families

1. Báthory Family from the Gutkeled Clan:

- This lineage traces its origins to two Swabian brothers, Gut and Kelad, who migrated to Hungary from the Stof castle, which is associated with either Staufen im Breisgau or Hohenstaufen in Württemberg.

- The Gutkeled Báthory family is traditionally divided into three branches: Somlyó, Ecsed, and Szaniszlófi. Each of these branches contributed to the political and social landscape of Hungary over the centuries, with significant figures such as Báthory István (Stephen Báthory), who served as the Prince of Transylvania and was elected King of Poland.

2. Báthory of Gagy Family from the Aba Clan:

- The second major Báthory lineage is linked to the Aba clan, descending from King Samuel Aba. This family also produced notable figures, including Miklós Báthory of Gágy (known also as Miklós of Siroka or Miklós Gereven) who was a vojvode of Transylvania from 1342-1344. [a. Herzoge. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Reference Library (arcanum.com)] - The distinct genealogical [Archaeogenetic analysis revealed East Eurasian paternal origin to the Aba royal family of Hungary | bioRxiv] and historical narratives of the Aba Báthory family further illustrate their separate identity from the Gutkeled Báthory family.

Supporting Academic Sources

I would like to emphasize that the article under deletion also includes multiple academic sources and archive materials that provide evidence for the distinction between these families. Some of these sources include:

1. Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Volume 45, pages 115-120. This academic article explores the Hungarian noble lineages, including the Báthory family of Gágy, and their role in the political history of the region.

2. - [Báthori család. (Gágyi). | Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)] this is from this book: Magyarország családai czimerekkel és nemzékrendi táblákkal – Wikipédia (wikipedia.org) I would like to point out that one of the most authoritative sources on Hungarian noble families is Nagy Iván's "Magyarország családai címerekkel" ("The Families of Hungary with Coats of Arms"). This book is widely recognized as the most accurate and comprehensive reference for Hungarian genealogies. The depth of research and the historical accuracy in this work make it an essential source for understanding the distinctions between the noble families, including the Báthory families of different origins. I recommend consulting this work for reliable information on the history of Hungarian nobility.

3. -[Báthory-Szőnyi Tibor: Noblesse oblige, Báthory-Szőnyi Tibor | Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Központi Könyvtár (MNMKK) (hnm.hu) ]

[11]https://catalog.library.hnm.hu/en/record/-/record/MNMKVT351217 The book Noblesse Oblige, which is included in the collections of both the Hungarian National Museum and the British Library, provides detailed information on the Báthory of Gágy family. The author of the book is a direct descendant of the family, which adds a unique perspective and depth of knowledge to the historical account. This work is a valuable resource for understanding the lineage and distinct identity of the Báthory of Gágy, offering well-researched insights that support the differentiation between the Báthory families.

4. -[Sirokai család. (Sirokai †) | Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai | Reference Library (arcanum.com)][12]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/tizedik-kotet-9475/sirokai-csalad-sirokai-9C84/ The genealogical table clearly shows that Miklós Báthory of Gágy is a descendant of Count Péter of Aba, lord of Szalánc. This lineage highlights the direct connection between the Báthory of Gágy family and the Aba clan, further supporting the distinct identity of this family in Hungarian noble history.

5. -[GAGYI LÁSZLÓ SÍRKÖVE. | Turul 1883-1950 | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)][13]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Turul-turul-1883-1950-1/1887-33C5/1887-3-3795/magyar-sirkovek-385B/gagyi-laszlo-sirkove-385C/ This article states that László, who was killed by the Turks, had a brother named Miklós, who served as the Voivode of Transylvania. Miklós's tombstone is one of the oldest known, and it features the ancient coat of arms of the Aba clan, providing important evidence of the family's lineage and noble heritage.

6. -[Siebmacher's grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch 1856-1961 | Arcanum Újságok] [14]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Siebmacher-siebmacher-wappenbuch-1/der-adel-von-ungarn-magyarorszag-2/csaladok-29/bathori-ii-v-gagy-880/ This article presents the great seal of the Báthory of Gágy family and explicitly states that they are descendants of the Aba clan. The seal serves as further historical evidence supporting the family's origins and distinct lineage

7. -[Báthori II. v. Gágy. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)] [15]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Siebmacher-siebmacher-wappenbuch-1/der-adel-von-siebenburgen-erdely-AC44/edelleute-niederer-adel-BA76/bathory-i-v-gagy-BCFE/ The same as above, but the small seal.

8. -[Báthory I., v. Gagy. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)][16]https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/collection/SiebmacherWappenbuch/ This is one of the most well-known books on European heraldry, providing a detailed description and illustrations of the symbols of the Báthory of Gágy family. The book offers important insight into their heraldic heritage, further emphasizing the family's distinct identity

It is essential to recognize that until the two families are adequately distinguished in separate articles, any encyclopedic information regarding their contributions and historical contexts risks being conflated, potentially leading to misinformation. This is particularly evident in related articles, such as the one on Aba (gens), which inaccurately attributes aspects of the Aba Báthory family to the Gutkeled Báthory family.

I respectfully urge the administrators and editors involved in the deletion decision to review the sources and context provided. A comprehensive understanding of Hungarian history, particularly regarding noble lineages, is vital for maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the information presented on Wikipedia.

The attached sources are highly respected and academically credible, and they clearly support the distinctions outlined in this article. I encourage all editors to carefully review these references, as they provide well-researched evidence that is crucial for an accurate understanding of the Báthory families Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This decision appeared to stem from a lack of historical knowledge on the subject, which led to misunderstandings and personal biases impacting the discussion. It is very challenging to engage in productive dialogue with individuals who lack knowledge about the history involved. It is essential to approach historical topics with thorough research and an open mind to ensure accurate representation. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veetuku Veedu Vaasapadi

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

The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. A WP:BEFORE was unable to find any significant coverage showing how this would be independently notable. Two editors (including myself) attempted to redirect to original Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii but IPs (likely LOGOUTSOCKin) have challenged so here we are. Would have recommend a redirect as an AP:ATD but doesn't seem that is an option at this point since that was challenged. CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii#Adaptations: given the existing coverage; not opposed to Keep if other users think a standalone page is OK. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uglydolls (TV series)

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

No independent reliable sources confirm that there will be an upcoming TV series with this title. This is a hoax. GTrang (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uglydoll: or UglyDolls. This is a 2019 project that crashed but it received a lot of coverage, which includes https://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/stx-wanted-uglydolls-to-be-a-franchise-instead-they-got-a-flop-173711.html https://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/stx-wanted-uglydolls-to-be-a-franchise-instead-they-got-a-flop-173711.html https://variety.com/2019/film/news/china-alibaba-stxs-uglydoll-franchise-1203105602/ https://www.thewrap.com/stx-entertainment-inks-partnership-with-alibaba-to-produce-finance-more-uglydolls/ etc etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the best target is: Uglydoll#Proposed_television_series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it's not independently notable. Could merge but there's nothing really to merge that isn't at the target of Uglydoll#Proposed television series. (I guess describing it as an "upcoming" series is maybe hoaxy but also could be a good faith misunderstanding of when the story was from. Skynxnex (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people involved in the Maratha Empire

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

List fails WP:NLIST. The list as a whole is not described in reliable sources. GTrang (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Me (Cian Ducrot song)

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

Restore redirect to Cian Ducrot. Fails WP:NSONG. This song lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. All of the sourcing appears to be based on this press release in which the author discusses his inspiration for the song. I have been unable to find independent analysis of the song outside of reviews of the album. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Ireland. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victory (Cian Ducrot album): found no additional coverage and agree that what's present is no good. Redirecting a song to the album it's from is standard, and charting information can be merged there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alimetry Limited

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

I don't see Alimetry Limited passing WP:NCORP. Unfortunately, I think I have declined this twice at AFC, yet the page creator would do a little improvement and resubmit. Following this way, I think it's wayward and not good to keep declining (even from another reviewer), when the article doesn't meet the minimum consideration, hence more participation would be good at AFD.

Quite a long article, source one is purely unreliable and it references the company's non notable product. The second one thebit.nz is also unreliable, and even though NZRS was edited years ago, I don't see the source's editorial integrity of this likely WP:BLOG. Source 7 didn't tell us about the "Gastric Alimetry", instead, about the effects of gastric disorders, which didn't even mention the product.

New Zealand International Business Awards (sources to a blog from a reliable source), the Arobia Trailblazer Innovation Grant, and Medtronic APAC innovation Challenge aren't notable awards per WP:NAWARDS, and same is applicable to the NZ Hi-Tech Awards. There also appear to be an over-detailed contents in the sections, "Technology" and "Clinical Research". Regulatory approvals doesn't justify notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and New Zealand. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT. I was a bit shocked to see SS accept this, only to become satisfied with seeing the AfD as their intention was right. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎. Opened at the same time as another editor. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hall (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was improperly draftified and restored, PRODed and then de-PRODed. I agree that Hall is not notable—I've been unable to find significant coverage of him—but I think this would benefit from discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Illinois. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bruce Hall (musician)

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

Fails WP:NBIO despite being known for his work as the bass guitarist, backing and lead vocalist for the rock band REO Speedwagon. GTrang (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Illinois. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Grubb

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

After three declined by three reviewers, the page creator continued resubmitting without properly reviewing the decline reason. Aside that, the sources aren't reliable, and this individual doesn't meet WP:NATH. More opinions are usually expressed in AFDs. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a soccer coach with the same name, not sure if it's him or not. Regardless, there is no sourcing for this crossfit athlete, with only database listings now used for sourcing. I can't find anything about him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superman's Metropolis

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability for these comics. I did search to find a bit of reception, but I can only find Valnet sources, which are not reliable, and even those are limited. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also bundling this with the two comics in the same series, which have the same issues. The Batman one only has one reliable source that I can find.

Di (they-them) (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (South African artist)

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

This article has no sources and no indication of notability. It only contains a link to the artist's online store. The subject does not meet the guidelines of WP:ARTIST nor WP:NBIO. Aneirinn (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kean (musician)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bring Me the Horizon as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO, demonstrates notability for point one and six. A few sources independent of the individual that show more than trivial interest, breaking down his playing style/technique, how he got started on bass in his early life and influences: [17], [18]. Point six mentions, "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians." Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia all have individual articles showing independent notability through musical collaborations and features, as well as production. Shout4Serenity (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle at Tel al-Hawa

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

WP:SYNTH: No source evidence that a series of engagements in the vicinity actually constitute a battle as such and the term is not a Wikipedia artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. There is this article in Countercurrents.org. These articles[19][20] also give a higher level overview of the topic. Might need to do more research.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is very little in searches about a "Battle at Tel al-Hawa"; in theory we could create many other "battles" around this conflict. We should stick to the ones that are noted in quality military sources; many such contrived battles in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are being rationalised (we get historic cases re-imaged as "battles" like Battle of Nicosia Airport). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Parks Operational Command Unit

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

Whilst this unit does exist (see here), it does not seem to be particularly notable, with very few non-primary sources. On searching, almost all external sources relate to the Royal Parks Constabulary instead. The existence of a police unit should not automatically warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Royal Parks Constabulary. Nothing is to be gained by removing information for dogmatic reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle globe

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

At very best, this subject deserves a sentence or two in an article on jigsaw puzzles. Qwirkle (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Which are already there, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to jigsaw puzzle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SPH-A460

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

I couldn't find evidence that this is a notable product. There are various Samsung-related articles it potentially could be redirected to as an WP:ATD, but none stand out as ones that are suitable. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Race Cars

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Challenge (competition)

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

Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with much better access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't just be kept in perpetuity without sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, Environment, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find any third party coverage, the competition itself seems to have fizzled out in 2008/9, and there doesn’t seem to be any sources talking about it as having happened at any point after it stopped. Can’t seem to turn up further coverage on the winners either, so THEY don’t seem to be notable either… Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes

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

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
True The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaz Hussain Batalve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I drafted it because I had concerns that it might not easily meet WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a famous and most respected personality of Asia adding his profile on Wikipedia is very much appropriate and knowledgeful for Wikipedians and otherwise. His contributions deserve to be appreciated by Wikipedia etc. Emmay33 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying there can't be an article. The problem is the language and grammar are currently too poor to publish. The article can be improved in draft space, then get moved to main article space. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I would say to draftify it again. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - AfD template removed by IP editor 116.71.176.235, restored now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a notable lawyer and a law professor per some of the sources in the article. AFD is not a place for article cleanup but to delete articles falling below notability thresh hold. What this article needs is cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Piscili (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is not at issue. The subject is absolutely worthy of an article. Agreed, AfD is not a place for article cleanup. Draftspace is. This article is not currently fit for article mainspace though - a lot of what's there makes literally no sense - sorry to be harsh, but some is just gibberish. But the article can't be moved to draft space because there is already a draft article there, and nobody bothered going through WP:AFC, they just copied and pasted back to a mainspace article. If the article is kept, I will be removing a lot of the content that makes no sense, the unsourced, and the hagiographic and unencyclopedic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge to draft then delete: Looks to be a copy-paste fork from the draft. Needs significant language work, which is an appropriate use of draftspace. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Bhojpur uprising

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

Much of the content has nothing to do with the actual incident which is itself non-notable. The subject as a whole fails WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the nominator should have researched about the subject before nominating this. There are several high quality journals that are strictly written on this topic. Atleast they should have gone through reference section where they could've found following:

Sinha, Arun (1978). "Class War in Bhojpur: I". Economic and Political Weekly. 13 (1): 10–11. JSTOR 4366262.
Mukherjee, Kalyan (1979). "Peasant Revolt in Bhojpur". Economic and Political Weekly. 14 (36): 1536–38. JSTOR 4367921.
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Kalyan Mukherjee (1982). "For reasons of state: Oppression and resistance a study of Bhojpur peasantry, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 9:3". : Agrarian Movements in India: Studies on 20th Century Bihar: 119–147. doi:10.1080/03066158208438175. S2CID 154841960.
Sinha, Arun (1978). "Class War in Bhojpur: II". Economic and Political Weekly. 13 (3): 90–92. JSTOR 4366310..Admantine123 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how any of these sources establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions don't count when it comes to establish notability. Dympies (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Made Agus Mahayastra

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

The subject fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Being the head of a third-level subdivision in Indonesia, essentially an elected local official, does not guarantee notability unless they also meet GNG criteria, which in this case, they do not. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Lipa

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like a failure to perform a BEFORE. I'm finding substantial references that are about Rina, not her older sister (Vogue, Deadline). Also, the sources present are not primarily focusing on Rina's relationship with her sister, but instead mention it as a considerable detail. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Vogue and Deadline have articles about Rina, but even the headlines in both pieces emphasize her relationship to Dua Lipa, which suggests that her notability is primarily tied to her sister. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read past the headline, per WP:HEADLINES. There is SIGCOV of her as a fashion model and actor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason she received coverage is due to her relationship with Dua Lipa, as even Vogue pointed out by stating, She’s self-aware about the nepo-sibling thing. Also, the lead describes her as a model, actress, and dancer, this means the article should also meet WP:ARTIST and WP:NMODEL requirements, both of which she falls short of meeting. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dua Lipa. There isn't much coverage of her as someone other than Dua's sister. Frost 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the existing coverage; a redirect to Dua Lipa#Early life is totally warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 120

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Uzbekistan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono

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

I can't find enough reliable secondary sources covering this work. Although the author is notable, there is no evidence that this series is. Xexerss (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not able to find anything about this as well, and the current sources in the article look unsuitable. Frost 15:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lynn Okamoto#Works; as per nom and my own search, which found little beyond what's already in the article. Link20XX (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical raw materials

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Africa. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced list. Does not meet the requirements of WP:V. Frost 15:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Triangle and Robert

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure if this webcomic is notable. The single reference that's in the article brings up Triangle and Robert a few times ([21]), though Google Books only lets me see snippets, so I can't tell if it's significant coverage or not. It has also been mentioned ([22]) in The Comics Journal, where it even says "This [...] strip is virtually never talked about when Web comics are discussed". The article was previously kept at an AfD, but that was back in 2005 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing in my literature either, and a google is giving me nothing reliable. There's not much for us to work with here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute (Aion album)

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

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

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

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

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

Five articles about albums not shown to pass WP:NALBUM. Back in the day, Wikipedia's approach to album notability was to extend an automatic inclusion freebie to any album recorded by a notable artist, regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the service of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums are now independently notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about the album. But four of these five articles are completely unreferenced, and one is referenced solely to a single unreliable source directory listing that isn't support for notability.
It also warrants note that these were all briefly redirected to the band a year and a half ago for lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted within 24 hours with no actual explanation provided of what the problem with redirecting them was, and they've continued to stand as unreferenced articles ever since, without ever having a whit of GNG-worthy sourcing added to any of them. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was the one who reverted some redirections, and I don't really recall why, but when I look into it now, I see that the editor who made the redirects was a problem editor who became indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao

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

The article is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Google Books provide no results at all for "Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao" or the original title "Northern Conquest of Raghunath Rao". The editor has arbitrarily linked various battles of his own choice into a single conflict, not supported by any RS. Also, note that the orginal creator has been banned for sockpuppetry, and multiple sockpuppets have often tried to restore the article after other editors redirected the page. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, Delhi, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly lacks notability as a singular subject. Much of the content fails verification and tries to blow out of proportion the historical significance of the events involving the winning states, as is typical with these socks. Noting to @Crashed greek that PadFoot was merely restoring the "backdoor deletion" rightly done by Sitush in October 2023 but repeatedly undone without just reason by socks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch with the Devil

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Redirect was reverted DonaldD23 talk to me 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fish Karma. Found no additional coverage myself, and Tucson Weekly alone is not enough. I suspect the artist's article probably doesn't meet notability standards either, but redirecting there for now is fine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Abdi Hassan

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

Non-notable. Only sources are entries in tables showing the individual participated in the Olympics. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV that could be used to help this subject, one of the many WP:LUGSTUBS overfilling this site still, meet the WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear redirect target. Let'srun (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Runner is a multiple-time international gold medallist satisfying WP:NATH and he has been covered in print media under his Arabic name "جمال عبدي حسن". A lot of print media from his era hasn't been digitized, but there are some remnants of prose online i.e. from Al Jazeera. He also had a viral moment falling on the water jump at the '96 Olympics which caused him to not make the finals. I don't have the text yet (working on it), but I know for a fact that infamous fall was covered in a The Times issue (transcribed in a news stream here) so that's another avenue for sourcing. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think enough breadcrumbs are here to justify keeping the article with some work. --Habst (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NATH is definitely not satisfied in the absence of any IRS SIGCOV sources. The Al Jazeera source above has all of one sentence on him in a list of event results, and categorically does not count towards notability. In the 5000m race, Qatari Jamal Abdi Hassan Abdullah came in seventh with a time of 13.04.65. Moroccans Salah Hissou and Abdel Rahim Al-Ghomri came in eleventh and sixteenth with a time of 13.16.87 and 13.36.08 respectively.
We have zero indication that anything in The Times is non-routine SIGCOV, or even anything beyond a photo caption. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, WP:NATH is definitely not satisfied in the absence of any IRS SIGCOV sources -- can you please provide a policy source that states this? It's definitely not supported by the text of NATH or the WP:NSPORTS2022 consensus on this issue. WP:NEXISTS is a valid policy to cite in this context while we work to comb through print media from the 1990s. --Habst (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do people have to explain to you that meeting SPORTCRIT is required for an athlete to meet NSPORT? You can meet a sport-specific sub-criterion via achievement, but you still have to meet NSPORT for any presumptions of coverage to apply. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I greatly respect your contributions here and hope you can extend the same respect to me. I think that WP:NATH and WP:SPORTCRIT are two separate parts of NSPORT without a clearly defined relationship to each other. Prong 2 of NATH is clearly met here by the subject's multiple international medals in distance running. To say that NATH isn't satisfied despite that simply isn't supported by the policy.

Also, NSPORT is only a guideline along with other more established guidelines such as WP:NEXISTS. If we can determine together that coverage exists of this athlete meeting the bar for notability, a keep vote would be justified. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread "NATH" as a synonym for "NSPORT". But regardless, all sport-specific criteria are subordinate to the overarching requirements at SPORTCRIT. Otherwise SPORTCRIT #5 would make no sense and the robust consensus at NSPORT2022 would be functionally ignored. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, if a consensus is functionally ignored, then that means it's not actually a consensus. I don't think your description of NSPORTS2022 matches the text of the summary, which says, There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support, which includes WP:NATH as a part of NSPORTS. Speaking of subordination, all of NSPORTS is subordinate to broader guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NEXISTS, so if we can fulfill those, there is no need to fulfill SPORTCRIT.

If we delete this article, my understanding is we would effectively be saying that Abdi Hassan is the only steeplechase Olympian since 1924 to have not met the notability guidelines. I'm not ruling out that it's possible, but it certainly deserves more effort than we have put in so far. For example, prompted by the below comment I looked at the page history and found several alternative names for the subject we can use as leads for name-searching. --Habst (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus has been observed in literally thousands of AfDs by this point. Only a very small cohort of editors ignore it or are ignorant of it. Your understanding of PAGs is clearly at odds with the rest of the community's. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, my views are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines which I strive to follow. If you have a particular issue, please cite the policy or guideline which you think I misinterpreted and we can discuss it. As I said before, I greatly respect your work and viewpoints here, and I hope that we can converse respectfully without resorting to personal comments. --Habst (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that a recent strong global consensus to require citing a GNG-contributing source in all athlete biographies is invalid because the same discussion didn't find a consensus to deprecate the entirety of NSPORT, and therefore its pre-RfC guidance is still in effect. As if following (your misreading of) one of the sub-outcomes of that RfC moots all of the findings of consensus for change in the same closing statement, all the subsequent consensuses at NSPORT for implementing those changes, and all the thousands of AfDs and major followup RfCs like LUGSTUBS 1 & 2 enforcing those changes.
Stop wasting people's time with this trolling. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I'm following my understanding of the consensus. a recent strong global consensus to require citing a GNG-contributing source in all athlete biographies -- that's not what the consensus was, per Special:Diff/1246440039, an athlete biography could still be kept even if it doesn't cite a GNG-contributing source as long as it fulfills broader policies like WP:NEXISTS. This is a direct quote from the person who established SPORTCRIT: SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule.

I still appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia which we are both here to build. Your last comment was unnecessary. --Habst (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...You're quoting one of the editors who most vehemently opposed NSPORT2022, repeatedly tried to stifle its implementation, and was cautioned at ANI for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT #5, as if his opinion reflects any kind of consensus. And anyway we have the creator of SPORTCRIT #5 also saying in the same discussion that Such circumstances are very rare, and I've only come across one circumstance in the past two years (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier) where I concluded that it was appropriately applied. That is far from the application of NBASIC you have been attempting so you should interpret #5 as overriding it.
If you're going to keep making utterly nonsensical claims about NSPORT I'm going to continue calling them out. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for this information. Can you please link to the ANI archive where Cbl62 was cautioned to for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT prong 5? I tried searching and couldn't find it. I also searched for your quote ("Such circumstances...") at both WP:Articles for deletion/Esraa Owis and WP:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier and couldn't find it.

Regardless, when I use WP:NEXISTS I assure you it's based in policy and made in good faith. If you disagree with the sources existing, please make claims to that effect. Broad guidelines like GNG and NEXISTS are not invalidated just because there is some smaller subject-specific guideline on Wikipedia. --Habst (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not Cbl62. I guess "warning" isn't the right term given its more specific meanings here, but certainly cautioned: BeanieFan11 should still be well aware that that warning did enjoy significant support and the consensus may be more clear if this comes up again.
NEXISTS doesn't mean you can just assume coverage exists merely because the subject meets your arbitrary presumptive standards. JoelleJay (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting one of the editors who most vehemently opposed NSPORT2022 ... [who] was cautioned at ANI for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT #5 – FWIW, there was no warning given at that ANI, which resulted in no consensus. You also enlisted that argument at the Vehmeier AFD; as an admin said there, There was no consensus to warn anyone at ANI and you should strike the comment as incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I should have used "cautioned". I forget "warning" has a specific meaning here. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the son of Jamal Abdi. I keep editing this wiki page because of some information. It has come to my attention that the page is in threat of deletion, I would greatly appreciate it if we don’t decide to delete it. 78.101.160.239 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Copied from talk page. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rutledge

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

Couldn't find any sources, just some images of his work. This unreliable blog states, "When compared to his widely recognized contemporaries, Richard Rutledge remains relatively obscure today. Little is known about the slightly enigmatic photographer". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: but with regret and reluctance. Rutledge seems to have been a prolific photographer[her whose work was often published in Vogue. However it has proved impossible to find online references. Obviousy his date of death militates against the online world, yet archived copies are being digitised all the time. If verifiably notable later n it will not be hard to write a substantially different article from this rather sparse stub. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Photography. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Laird

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there isn't much coverage and hasn't played in an acceptable league. Frost 16:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Tehran airport collision

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe you are in a region where access to the BBC is blocked: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/628749.stm Thincat (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have access to the BBC but as noted above, these sources aren't secondary due to there being no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know the source of some of the BBC's information: I doubt whether they had a reporter on the spot. Where they tell us what Mazaheri said they are giving us his secondary account surely? But, apart from the secondary aspect, the event may well not be too notable. I found the other claims in your nomination more persuasive. Thincat (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Armenia Government in Exile

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

This is a non-notable entity. The article contains not a single third party source establishing its notability. It a small group of individuals who set up a website. Wikipedia should not be promoting non-notable groups with little to none relevance. --Երևանցի ^talk 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. looks like I found 60 seemingly ok sources that seem to be OK. 59 if you strike out Artsakh Public TV (which is clearly talking about football), and 58 if you remove Newinfo. [possibly 57 or 56, i forgot if I had crossed out Facebook and ARMINFOCENTER already or not...]

Google Search Query: "արևմտյան հայաստանի հանրապետության" -site:"www.parliament-wa.info/" -site:"parliament-wa.info/" -site:"https://citizenship-western-armenia.info/" -site:"western-armenia.eu" -"Western Armenia TV"

The source providers for the Armenian search: Israelahayer, Nt.am, mamul.am, Lousavor Avedis Hraparak, hhtert.am, asekose.am, Keghart, iravunk.com, A1Plus, Factor.am, Anews.am, Aravot, Radio YAN, iravunk on YouTube and Noyan Tapan on YouTube.

Now then, none of these sources are used in the article.

Also, I even question whether or not these are actual reliable sources, or if this even says a word about notability.

Still gonna bring that one up though.

Pressenza also allowed the Consul(ate) of Western Armenia in Argentina covers the Origin of the Republic of Western Armenia, an article on how Artsakh is legally part of the Republic of Western Armenia (actually, this source can fit into the article. didnt even know about it until now. gonna add it rq.), "The Hour of Dignity", and a Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. Other than that that seems to be it.

I wonder if that makes Western Armenia available for notability? Kxeon (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per rationale listed above by Kxeon. There is a plethora of sources online about this topic. It surpasses WP:N guidelines. It is a prominent political entity within the Armenian Diaspora, specifically representing Armenians in Turkey. Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source listed. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the article? Please review the sources section. In addition, a simple google search yielded 117,000,000 results. Archives908 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness! 117 MILLION?!? Keep, but because I'm not sure how many of these are actually about Western Armenia and how many are just about Armenia, it's not Strong. Kxeon (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename Republic of Western Armenia still substantial enough within scholarly sourcing. Ecpiandy (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What scholarly sourcing? ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamasha (season 3)

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

Articles on the previous two seasons of this TV series are redirects to Tamasha (TV series) and I don't believe this one meets GNG either. I suggest merging it into the main Tamasha article and in-fact, I attempted to do this, but my edit was reverted, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tamasha (TV series) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it meets GNG criteria. And as far as the previous two seasons are concerned. It doesn't matter if previous seasons have their respective pages or not; it should be judged independently on GNG criteria. There is more information which will be added to the page such as day by day activities which will be difficult to include in the Shows main page. Toafzaal (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight F-637

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian podcasts

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

Promotional article fails WP:NLIST. Almost all items are non-notable. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Weak Keep. I don't see how the article is promotional and its a well sourced list. It serve as a informational list per WP:LISTPURP. The problem is it needed more expansion. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST becauase Indian podcasts have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which is demonstrated by the cited sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Colony Model School and College

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

Deleted via PROD last year, recently recreated as a translation of bn:রেডিও কলোনি মডেল স্কুল এন্ড কলেজ. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG, so fails WP:NSCHOOL. Searches in English and Bengali found nothing but passing mentions and indiscriminate directory listings. Without significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dhaka District, where it is not presently mentioned, but where a section on the district schools would be due. There is only enough information for a few lines in such a section. Insufficient sourcing to meet GNG for a standalone page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Crosby

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage for this person exists. Wired [23], The Register [24], eWeek [25], Computerwoche [26], InfoWorld [27], CRN [28], TechTarget [29], Csoonline.com [30] Frost 16:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, South Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lamberti

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are interviews, WP:SPS sources and passing mentions. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, South Africa, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Schnellenkamp

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

Request for deletion of the Wikipedia article about Klaus Schnellenkamp due to lack of relevance according to the WP guidelines. These state that public reporting on the person in question must be independent of time or over a long period of time. However, there was only selective reporting, and this was done around 15 years ago. Hence the deletion request!KSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)KSWKSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Germany, and Chile. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Methos Chronicles

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventuress of Henrietta Street

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, reliable external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV; should be deleted, or merged or redirected into Faction Paradox DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons (though the last one has a plot summary; however, the other issues still persist):

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, merge rest. The obvious redirect is Eighth Doctor Adventures, but there are various merge choices. Faction Paradox works for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street, but the individual authors may make more sense for some material. I’ve just added a citation to Unnatural History, which is the most developed article and I suggest worth keeping. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unnatural History (novel), (very selectively), redirect all the others to Eighth Doctor Adventures. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV besides the single mention of Unnatural History in Women in Doctor Who, which is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Otherwise nothing on Google Scholar, Google Books, or JSTOR. All the articles besides Unnatural History are too short for there to be much point in merging. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am unclear why you said there was nothing on Google Scholar. I've just found a second citation there (Third Person: Authoring and Exploring Vast Narratives) and have added it to the article. I've also added a third citation. Let's do some proper WP:BEFORE work. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I've just added three citations for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. Butler goes into some depth discussing it. I suggest keep for Adventuress, Unnatural and Angel. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor has been characterised as a Messianic figure lots of time, it's not notable enough for an entire article, at best it should be merged into Faction Paradox, Angel uses unreliable sources, should be redirected/merged, and same for the other two; keep Unnatural. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as different outcomes are being proposed without identifying what happens with each subject which really complicates a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Romance

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Virgin New Adventures, which is the series of books it was published in. Bondegezou (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the consensus is to merge, it should be merged to Bernice Summerfield; one of its sections deal with the VNAs that she is the primary character in, and even the Bernice Summerfield section at VNA's article links there. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Brazier, Paul (August 1999). "War, Who & the Web". Interzone. No. 146. p. 62. Retrieved 2024-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "There is nothing challenging about this book. It is a Ten-Little-Indians archaeological romp with a certain amount of self-doubt and self-pity for Benny. People do heroic things and people die horribly, and the serial killer and the truth are duly revealed, and Benny doesn’t stuff up quite as badly as she thought. I enjoyed this book simply as an undemanding romp; I didn’t like The Mary-Sue Extrusion for its involuted knowingness, although I am sure there are people who would admire the skill with which it is carried off; and I enjoyed Dead Romance a lot because it made me reconsider solipsism all over again. If there is one thing I do like, it is variety in my diet, and those people at Virgin Books certainly seem to be supplying that."
I found one review that provides significant coverage about the book. If a second review that provides significant coverage about the book can be found, this article can be kept. If a second review cannot be found, I support a merge to Virgin New Adventures.
Cunard (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if this source is sufficient or whether or not a Merge would be preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Khosravi

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

No evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Fails. WP:BIO. Apparently an WP:AUTOBIO. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern, but I have added multiple independent and reliable sources that demonstrate Saeed Khosravi's notability as per WP

These include references from:

Books: Khosravi is mentioned in Marketing and Globalization (published by Taylor & Francis) and Starting a Business for Dummies (published by John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated), both of which are reputable sources in their fields.
Industry Publications: Articles from IONOS and BrightLocal recognize Khosravi’s SaaS product Allintitle.co, and other platforms such as Vendasta, SurveySparrow, and AgencyAnalytics reference his work with ReviewTool.com.
Government and Academic Sources: His corporate registration is verified by the Canadian government’s Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) website, and his academic thesis is available through HEC Montreal's library, confirming his Master's degree.

While I understand that it could be perceived as an autobiographical entry, the article’s content is based on third-party sources that independently recognize Khosravi's contributions to the field of marketing. These sources collectively demonstrate that he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for entrepreneurs. KhosraviSaeed (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional probableautobio. The sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the article is promotional or fails to demonstrate notability. I added numerous independent and reputable sources that clearly shows Saeed Khosravi's significance in the business and marketing field, meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These sources include:
1. Books by Established Publishers: Khosravi is mentioned in Marketing and Globalization (published by Taylor & Francis) and Starting a Business for Dummies (published by John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated). These books are recognized publications and provide independent verification of his involvement in marketing and entrepreneurship.
2. Industry Recognition from Multiple Sources: Leading industry websites such as IONOS and BrightLocal have recognized his work with Allintitle.co as a notable SEO tool. Additionally, his other SaaS product, ReviewTool.com, has been featured in independent articles from platforms like Vendasta, SurveySparrow, and AgencyAnalytics.
3. Government and Academic Validation: His role as a business owner is verified by the Canadian government’s Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) website, and his academic achievements are documented through his Master's thesis, which is available via the HEC Montreal library.
These sources, which include published books, industry-recognized platforms, and government records, are independent and credible, and they collectively support the subject's notability beyond what would be considered self-promotion. I am also open to adding any further references if needed and improving the article to address any concerns. I request that the article be reconsidered in light of these multiple reliable new sources demonstrating the subject's notability. KhosraviSaeed (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in this autobiography is usable. And please don't reply with the same points for the third time, typed in excessive boldface. Your time is better spent reading about Wikipedia uses sources; various book mentions, his (your...) own master's thesis are of little help to us. Read well-written articles about business figures and learn how articles are written. Geschichte (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your perspective, but I'd like to clarify that Wikipedia's primary criteria for inclusion are verifiability and notability, not necessarily "usefulness." Furthermore, something that might perceived useless from your perspective might be very useful from another person's point of view. The article includes multiple independent and reputable sources that establish notability. I am committed to improving the article based on feedback and ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's standards. I welcome further guidance on how it can be refined to meet the community's expectations. Thanks, KhosraviSaeed (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any misunderstanding in my previous response. I see now that I misinterpreted your reference to "usefulness." To clarify, the thesis is included to verify the academic background of the subject. The two books are separate and do not mention the thesis. Marketing and Globalization cites a different paper developed by him as per his studies at HEC Montreal and specifically names him as a reference, demonstrating his contribution to that work and his master's degree at HEC Montreal. Meanwhile, Starting a Business for Dummies includes a mention of ReviewTool, a SaaS product founded by the subject, which helps to establish the notability of his entrepreneurial activities. These sources were added to provide independent verification of the subject's notability. KhosraviSaeed (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a different point, I appreciate your feedback, I would like to kindly seek clarification on what you mean by "nothing is usable." The article includes multiple independent sources, such as the official registration from the Canada Corporation, verification from HEC Montreal for the subject's academic background, and mentions in two separate books (Marketing and Globalization and Starting a Business for Dummies) and two different scholarly articles each highlighting different aspects of his work. Could you please elaborate on why these sources are considered not usable from your perspective? I’m committed to ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia’s standards and would appreciate any feedback and guidance anyone can provide to improve it. Thanks, KhosraviSaeed (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia's guidelines, significant coverage is needed to demonstrate notability. Just having verification and brief mentions is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Coverage of the subject's products and business that does not contain coverage of the subject himself does not help show that the founder is notable. Additionally, most of those sources are marketing blogs, so they are probably not reliable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback, but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of "significance." According to Wikipedia's guidelines, the significance of coverage is determined by the "credibility" and "independence" of the sources, not solely by the length of the mention. Being cited in two published books and three scholarly articles demonstrates significant recognition. Regarding your point about blogs, only three of the sources are from marketing blogs. Since the subject's work revolves around marketing and SaaS products, it is natural for coverage to be found in reputable marketing publications. Additionally, sources like IONOS and BrightLocal are well-regarded in the industry and were included to demonstrate that the software developed by the subject is recognized and notable within its field. KhosraviSaeed (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is a separate criterion from reliability and independence. The guidelines state "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. Citations with no detail are trivial mentions. Again, sources that only discuss the products cannot be used to demonstrate notability of the founder; see Notability is not inherited. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and my reasoning above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuri Mian

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

Editors tend to believe that AFC is fabricated with accepting special drafts and abandoning others. Very funny. I don't see how this drat, now an article, meets WP:GNG. Owing a non notable company doesn't show notability in any way. The article is very promotional, and doesn't appear to be notable in the future (eye sighted observation). A community consensus would clearly address its problem. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. APK hi :-) (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though firstly to nom, you didn't have to accept the draft if you thought it non-notable, even though it had waited a while (the fact it had waited suggests others felt the same). That aside, reviewing a number of refs doesn't sway me away from concurring with the nom statement. The entire "early life" section is cited to a google drive(!), and the apparent relevant file doesn't give me confidence in its integrity. The second paragraph isn't even about the subject, less the last paragraph, which tries to imply notability because he "built a big house". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cha Keon-myung

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of K League games. Prod was tried many years ago. Geschichte (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also unsourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Sun-il

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of K League games as well as some in lower divisions. Geschichte (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liang Yongfeng

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 15 games in Hong Kong and nothing else. Sources are WP:ROUTINE at best. Geschichte (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fonti

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article as I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this Australian rules footballer to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences of coverage here interspersed between some quotes, and this routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too soon, not enough sources that fit the GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: doing a decent WP:BEFORE check is difficult these days with the major Aussie papers going behind paywalls, but Newsbank had 3 items of significant coverage from independent sources, which I've added to the article. The-Pope (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National liberation struggle of the Ingush people

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

This article is a POVFORK and we already have a decent article at Ingush people. There may be some elements of this article that can be merged there, but I don’t think this article as a whole should be retained. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Sellers

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this young Australian rules footballer. Draftify until better sourcing is found. JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Härnösand FC United

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

I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The relatively new club has languished in the lowest tiers, peaking on the sixth tier. I know Swedish but can't find any sources that are not WP:PRIMARYSOURCES or WP:ROUTINE. Similar clubs have been deleted in recent times, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Geschichte (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Case identical to that of other recent AfDs. Svartner (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsian IF

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

I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The relatively new club has languished in the ninth tier and above, peaking on the sixth tier. Similar clubs have been deleted in recent times, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Geschichte (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Iran, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Case identical to that of other recent AfDs. Svartner (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Carry

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

From the sources provided by the article and my own research, I have come to the conclusion that Florida Carry as an organization has not received significant media coverage as per WP:SIRS' notability criteria. The articles cited mention Florida Carry only in passing or in one sentence, and do not maintain the focus upon the organization for the source to be considered significant. However, while I was looking over the references cited, I noticed that Florida Carry apparently authored House Bill 463, which was passed in 2012. The article in question: [31], and the bill in question: [32].

If better coverage can be found of Florida Carry as an organization or its actions, then there would be a stronger case for cleaning up the article instead of deleting it. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Firearms, and Florida. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Most references to the organization are minor, and the majority of the sources are merely links to the bills that they supported. Their actions are also somewhat irrelevant considering the activities of larger organizations that likely made a much larger impact on the bills in question. JohnWarosa (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Wood

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches do not produce any WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerthings7112 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Filing this on behalf of Strangerthings7112, who made a malformed nomination attempt. Left guide (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject was part of an important lawsuit dealing with libel and people who were once famous but later in life were not. Significant coverage of Wood was found so her notability is not WP:INHERITED from Elvis. Added sources including newspaper articles, books, and law journals. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not significant coverage, and Anita Wood was never famous. Practically everyone in the Elvis world was involved in some lawsuit at one point or another; the one you cite is no more important than this lawsuit involving Elvis' fiancée Ginger Alden. Ginger Alden had much greater media visibility than Anita Wood, appeared on countless magazine covers and even published a memoir, yet Alden's Wiki page was deleted because she too does not meet the criteria. The only reason Anita Wood's Wiki page hasn't been deleted is because hardly anybody knows it exists. How do you justify deleting the Alden page but not this one? It's a double standard. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr vulpes. Also sorry for accidentally closing it, I misclick. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries I misread an AfD the other day and closed it by mistake. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only references on Anita Wood are just mere mentions about her being Elvis' nonexclusive off-and-on girlfriend but you can't make an article out of that. So it fails WP:GNG. There is some coverage out there, but none of it is direct or significant. WP:GNG states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" thus why she fails it. No notability except for casually dating a celebrity. And we all know that notability is inheritable per se. Elvis' fiancée Ginger Alden had far greater media visibility than Anita Wood and even published a memoir yet Alden's Wiki page was deleted because she too does not meet the criteria. The only reason Anita Wood's Wiki page hasn't been deleted is because hardly anybody knows it exists. For those of you who oppose this deletion, how do you justify deleting the Alden page but not this one? Strangerthings7112 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, Strangerthings7112, your deletion nomination is considered your Delete vote. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
There's an entire book about her that covers her relationship with Elvis but also the rest of her career and life.
Barrett, Jonnita Brewer (2012). Once upon a time: Elvis and Anita: memories of my mother. Jackson, MS: BrewBar Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9858056-0-9. OCLC 823306179.

Her defamation lawsuit is an important part of the law surrounding public figures right to privacy over time.
"John L. Brewer, v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc". United States Court of Appeals. 1976-09-13. Retrieved 2008-12-31.

Dato, Robert M. (1983). "The Effect of Passage of Time on the Status of Inactive Public Figures". Federal Communications Law Journal. 35: 235.

Duhart, Olympia R. (2002–2003). "When Time Stands Still: An Argument for Restoring Public Figures to Private Status". Nova Law Review. 27: 365.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

Kaminsky, Alan (1981–1982). "Defamation Law: Once a Public Figure Always a Public Figure". Hofstra Law Review. 10: 803.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

And this list of the databases, including the library of congress, that she appears in for her music.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those links copy the verbiage straight off Wikipedia (i.e. WP:MIRROR). I see nothing in WorldCat or the LoC about "her music" (the only music she did was uncredited backing vocals); her sole reason for inclusion seems to be her daughter's book. Ginger Alden also has an entry in the Library of Congress and WorldCat so again, these do not demonstrate notability. And as I've pointed out, practically everyone in the Elvis world, including Ginger Alden, was involved in some lawsuit at one point or another. Who's to say that Anita Wood's lawsuit is more "important"? Nothing you've provided constitutes WP:SIGCOV. The book you cite, written by her daughter, was published by a small local independent publisher in Mississippi whose only noticeable publication seems to be said book (whereas Ginger Alden's book was published by Ace Books, a major house in NYC). Since Ginger Alden's page warranted deletion, Anita Wood's most certainly warrants deletion too. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis:@SNUGGUMS:@Robert McClenon:@Davey2010:@Clarityfiend:@Johnpacklambert: Since each of you deemed the Ginger Alden page worthy of deletion, I request your input on deleting the Anita Wood page. Anita Wood is without doubt less notable than Ginger Alden so I see no reason to keep the page. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the Elvis in Australia page has copied some material from Wikipedia, but it's the rest of the interview that follows which is what the source is being used for. The other one is her obituary so and I'm not seeing anything copied over. Unless I'm missing something. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that Anita's hometown newspaper is the only outlet to report her passing. Had she met notability criteria the news would've been picked up by wire services. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't examined those sources in-depth yet for SIGCOV, but from a cursory review "John L. Brewer, v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc" appears to fit the description of WP:RSLAW#Official summaries or syllabi which seems to be treated as a primary source, so likely doesn't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide I only put the court case in the AfD to help anyone looking at the law journals since it uses her married name Brewer instead of Wood. Personally I get kind of annoyed when reading law journals because the text is super tiny and sometimes OCR won't catch the case names correctly. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that entire book about her that covers her relationship with Elvis but also the rest of her career and life (link) was authored by the article subject's daughter, so clearly a WP:COISOURCE, not independent. Left guide (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Strangerthings7112: If you want to gain traction in persuading the community to delete this article, at a minimum you're going to have to cut out the "Alden" arguments per WP:OTHER. It's not relevant here; each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Also, as a side note, please refrain from posting comments to the AfD log page; I've had to clean up after you a few times. Instead, keep all of your commentary on this page, thanks. Left guide (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Left guide: It's not really a matter of WP:OTHER when one takes into account the fact that the Wikipedia entries for Anita and Ginger came into existence for exactly the same reason: that they dated Elvis. Unlike Linda for instance, neither woman has any notability outside their connection to him. And Ginger was unquestionably more significant in terms of coverage. So if Ginger's page got deleted, the standard should be upheld. Anita's page simply failed to get noticed when similar pages were being scrubbed. It has to be pointed out that Marco Garibaldi, June Juanico and Danny Keough all formerly had Wiki entries as well. And all were deleted on the same grounds: no notability outside their connection to Elvis. So to argue that this page should be kept is like saying Mary-Kate Olsen deserves a Wiki entry but Ashley Olsen doesn't. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strangerthings7112, you have been advised already to stop bringing up Ginger Alden's article in this discussion and now I'm saying it a second time. The fact that this article was deleted has no effect on whether or not the article on Anita Wood is kept or deleted which will rest on its own merits. We don't compare articles in AFDs and there is no official precedence. Please critique the sources and not the subject and do not BLUDGEON the discussion and comment on every argument you disagree with. You nominated the article, have put forth your point of view and now it's time to hear from other editors. Repeating your view over and over again will not convince anyone to agree with you, it will just irritate people. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just added and sourced a little of her background before she met Elvis. I have also added information from the Texas State Archives. Texas-based disc jockey and news media reporter Eddie Fadal first met Elvis, when Elvis had his basic Army training at Fort Hood (renamed Fort Cavazos) in Waco, Texas. He is well known for his close friendship with Elvis. According to Eddie, everyone believed Elvis and Anita would marry, and were really surprised when Elvis married someone else. There are images in many Elvis bios, where Elvis and Anita were spending time in Eddie's house. Graceland has often hired Eddie for fan gatherings at Graceland. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It doesn't constitute notability. There is no reason for Anita to have a Wikipedia page. If she has one then Ginger Alden's deleted page should be restored. For that matter, Danny Keough and Marco Garibaldi's deleted pages should be restored. Then what....a Wikipedia page for Currie Grant? The Stanley brothers? Cliff Gleaves? Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Strangerthings7112 - Why are you canvassing users who have no historical association with the article to participate in the AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon because ten years ago you voted to delete or redirect the Ginger Alden article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle fixed gear

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

I don't think this article in its current state meets WP:NSPORT. Yes we have fixed-gear bicycle, as well as fixed gear racing, but it doesn't seem clear what this one is all about. As they say, two heads are better than one, and here I am to find the community's assessment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cycling. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chromebooks

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

There are hundreds of Chromebooks, including many that are not on this list. Of these, only a handful have been deemed notable for their own article. Not only is this list unwieldy and the scope too broad to be feasibly maintained, but the material also reeks of WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:LISTCRUFT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning delete, I agree entirely with the nom statement that the scope of "list of chromebooks" is so broad and ever increasing, that it's simply not feasible to maintain the article as an up to date list which is all-encompassing. Even as a means of supporting a purchase for interested readers, the older devices become insignificant with the passage of time, except if becoming historically notable. Unless others counter with a sound retention rationale, i'm edging towards delete, as to rewrite into something different would probably be a WP:TNT job anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the person who created the article, only to get the excessively long list of info off the main Chromebook page, I'm happy for it to be deleted as unwieldy/unable to be maintained/trivial/excessively detailed for inclusion on WP. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Pakistan, Kyiv

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

Fails WP:ORG. Sources 2 to 12 merely confirm previous and current ambassadors LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Pakistan, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Pakistan: per ATD — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

AfDs for this article:

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

This streamer does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The Siliconera sources are WP:ROUTINE, trivial, and based off of primary sources. The Japan Times and Polygon sources are based off of tweets and leverage notability from a corporate controversy. Doing a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing else of use. Relisting this deletion discussion since the last one did not get much attention. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Internet, Japan, and Canada. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject of the article has only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. This article was just at AFD two months ago, why was a new discussion started up so soon? We advise more time between visits to AFD unless the content is severely problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Kulakov

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Most (if not all) of sources are self-published sources. GTrang (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see self-publishing sources. If you can see it, you may delete them. Not article at all. Thank you. Abcrad (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources aren’t self-published, but I agree they are inadequate to support a biography as they do not demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wright Investors' Service Holdings, Inc.

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

Fails GNG. There’s a news article about them donating some dam properties but that’s it. Northern Moonlight 03:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The nominator is right.--Gabriel (……?) 11:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RKSV HBC

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches do not produce any WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Netherlands. Demt1298 (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Demt1298, where did you look for sources? gidonb (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both English and Dutch Google for news stories on the club. If you have other sources, please update the article. I also reviewed the sources for the article and all but one would be considered closely related to the article. The one that doesn't covers a single event, which does not reach WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epaderm

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

Did not see any information about the product outside of articles selling skincare products. Just seems to lack sources. GamerPro64 02:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. GamerPro64 02:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google Books shows snippet views from several professionals healthcare handbooks, though whether these go beyond brief descriptions of the product is unclear. There is also a published study, visible on open-access: "A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm®, an Emollient Cream". AllyD (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of significant independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the product's notability. The article mostly reads like a product description and lacks substantial third-party coverage or critical analysis--Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get an assessment of the source AllyD brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation and employee engagement

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

This article functions mostly as a cross between a lower quality version of Employee motivation and a dump of summaries of studies. I don't see how having the page is useful when Employee motivation and Work motivation both exist. Hihyphilia (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Hihyphilia, I see you are a relatively new editor. Did you conduct a WP:BEFORE before nominating this article? Did you assess the sources? Do you have a policy-based reason for arguing for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reassessing the sources and realized that the current page is a structured like a modified version of one of the sources (The thesis by Bergström, Emma; Garcia Martinez, Melanie (2016), cited 19 times). While I don't think the similarity is close enough to be a copyright violation, it is kinda sorta plagiarism? Quite a few of the sources seem more like someone picking sources that kinda look right from a google search, and don't support the text. I would need to visit a university library to 100% confirm they're bad though. Hihyphilia (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hihyphilia, thank you for the response to my query. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; a merge may work only if the above concerns of plagiarism are clarified and the content adds something sufficiently novel. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT history in Georgia

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

Redirect per wp:2DABS, unless there are more. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sexuality and gender, Disambiguations, Georgia (country), and Georgia (U.S. state). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is merge with LGBT history in Georgia and move that to LGBT in Georgia. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no primary topic, so the base name needs to host a disambiguation page per WP:NOPRIMARY. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARY Demt1298 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No primary topic. PamD 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both LGBT history in Georgia and LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT in Georgia, making the latter the host DAB instead of a redirect to just one of them. I agree with other !votes that each should be kept as a form of disambiguation as there is no a clear primary topic between the two, however I don't see why we can't redirect this to a more general article title which broadly covers the history and rights articles together. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOPRIMARYas above. The merge between two pages not under discussion in this AfD may well be a good idea, but (a) I don't see why they should then assume the status of primary topic over an eponymous country, so the merged title should remain LGBT history in Georgia (U.S. state), (b) neither of the pages for merge are the subject of this AfD so it should be done as a merge discussion, (c) that merge would, in any case need to precede a following RM discussion, and page moves are not AfD outcomes. So all of that can be pursued separately. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure a merge suggestion can form part of a discussion in an AfD, especially as renaming of pages is not actually a necessity to achieve that proposal. I also have no clue what you mean by point "a", perhaps there is a weak explanation on my part. Either way, I was clear that I agreed with the "keep" !votes in keeping the page as a means of disambiguating between two articles without a primary, but as the nom specifically mentioned the LGBT in Georgia (rights) article, I figured i'd offer a view on that too.

Besides, do we really need to have two DABs for the "history" and "rights" when we can just change LGBT in Georgia into a DAB article linking to all four? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, a merge would be a nice idea to address separately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOPRIMARY, I'm sure this happens to other articles for Georgia and Georgia. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good way to disambiguate per WP:NOPRIMARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preference is keep the status quo of two dabs per WP:NOPRIMARY. Merging the two into a single DAB would be acceptable as the line between the two is a bit fuzzy although I think in general we maintain both articles for many localities so having to is fine. Strongly oppose any sort of removing the dabs and replacing with a redirect to one with just a hatnote. That's been discussed many, many as a general concept between the two Georgias and the current consensus is clearly no primary so TWODABS suggests having a disambiguation page (see all the RMs in Talk:Georgia (country) for example). Skynxnex (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Alphabet (Armenian TV series)

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG and my search revealed no WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Armenia. Demt1298 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I could find no significant coverage in RS, English or Armenian, to meet WP:GNG, as outlined in the essay WP:NTV. I sympathise with the article creator's long-term aim to get more Armenian coverage into English Wikipedia, but they keep adding non-notable television shows. There are so many notable Armenian topics missing, which would be warmly welcome. If kept, the title should be changed to Our Alphabet: no disambiguation is needed. Wikishovel (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Armenia_TV_and_Armenia_Premium#Former/reran_programming_of_Armenia_TV -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carter (businessman)

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

Promotional biography of a businessman with no WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. While many references in the article have broken due to formatting errors, I tracked them down and found nothing to support WP:GNG or WP:NBIO -- it's a series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, mentions in WP:TRADES publications and a couple profiles in non-independent sources. Similar coverage found in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party

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

Political party that existed for less than a year and advocated for a single issue. Only limited coverage, and it all appears to be from 2008, except for a single article about "the stranger parties of NZ's past and present" from 2018. This seems similar to how political candidates may receive limited coverage during an elecetion but are not considered notable. The article creator has reverted an attempt to redirect this page to Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Single-issue_politics#Oceania: I couldn't find articles showing lasting impact other than an article that justifiably says their lasting impact is the absence of a commercial airport there Oblivy (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats - basically one guy who got fewer than 300 votes the one time he stood for election. it is an idiosyncrasy of NZ politics that anyone who can scrape up a deposit can say they are a party even if their unregistered "party" is basically a laptop and a printer. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties. I feel the inclusion anywhere else would be undue given how little there is about it. Whilst the Whenuapai air base has been a recurring topic in NZ politics, this party had no impact on it and there is an IP edit that suggests the founder of the party (and it's only member) doesn't want to be associated with it anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveosaurus and Traumnovelle, I notice the section on that list specifically notes that it should be for notable parties. I would expect a non-notable party be ineligible for inclusion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that. Many of those parties listed are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. If there is no suitable place to redirect/mention it at then deletion would be best. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAaWAP seems notable enough for a list of unsuccessful parties, particularly since they've been outrageously successful in preventing that airport being built! If consensus firms around the parties list, then I'll change my proposed redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is jocular about it. The party itself really had no impact. The commercial airport at Whenuapai has always been a terrible proposal unlikely to go through (estimated to cost around a billion just to move the military operations and other reasons relating to national defence that I can't mention on Wikipedia). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my attempt at jocularity. I'm happy to follow the consensus on redirect target, waiting to see if any other views emerge Oblivy (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is such a nothingburger I really don't think it even qualifies for merging. Maybe a merge to the single-issue politics page as per previous comment could make sense, but this is such a tiny thing I think it would be undue there. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single person single issue party. Was never registered to contest elections and only the founder contested a seat under that tikcet (without success). Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have three different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even notable enough to go on a list of failed parties - given that it was never actually a registered party, just a name the one dude gave himself to look better on a ballot form. Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter if it's a non-registered party? Sure, there's this which says that at the time it was an unregistered party name. But we have the NZ Herald saying it's a party[33] and this from the government registering the logo[34]. In my view, the name is verifiable and that should be the end of it. Notability is lacking which is why I support merge. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]