Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday July 14 (Sun) July 13 (Sat) July 12 (Fri) More...

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

< July 12	July 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jahangir Alam Kabir

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

Non-notable person. Sources are either unreliable or merely passing mentions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Bangladesh. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think don't need to deletion because he mainly journalist so it's better to stay and he is vice president of satkhira press club Antu Official (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bro what's the problem with this article. Even in bangla Wikipedias many article is hasn't valid references or local news reference. Unfortunately some article delete by national newspapers so I provided local daily newspapers reference so where is the problem? So I reference it Daily kalantor news and they approved as well they make infobox I just edit and upgrade everything properly, that's it. Antu Official (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bro what's the problem with this article. Even in bangla Wikipedias many article is hasn't valid references or local news reference. Unfortunately some article delete by national newspapers so I provided local daily newspapers reference so where is the problem? So I reference it Daily kalantor news and they approved as well they make infobox I just edit and upgrade everything properly, that's it. Antu Official (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you search "দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর " you guys get news references and I agree one or two are national newspapers. But if you are watch deeply so you guys get name 'দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবির or দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর' into all article . And the main fact is you guys always delete this article and removing with out using common sense. Antu Official (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think don't need to deletion because he mainly journalist so it's better to stay and he is vice president of satkhira press club Antu Official (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bro what's the problem with this article. Even in bangla Wikipedias many article is hasn't valid references or local news reference. Unfortunately some article delete by national newspapers so I provided local daily newspapers reference so where is the problem? So I reference it Daily kalantor news and they approved as well they make infobox I just edit and upgrade everything properly, that's it.

if you search "দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর " you guys get news references and I agree one or two are national newspapers. But if you are watch deeply so you guys get name 'দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবির or দৈনিক আজকের সাতক্ষীরা পত্রিকার নির্বাহী সম্পাদক জাহাঙ্গীর আলম কবীর' into all article . And the main fact is you guys always delete this article and removing with out using common sense Antu Official (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it This have no any significance coverage. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los últimos héroes

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. Having searched the internet, Scholar, and Google Books, the "best" I could find was a fansite collecting clips by the Menudo telenovela of the same name. Redirect to Menudo (group). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Puerto Rico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. These recently recreated Menudo articles are just not notable. Ss112 02:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Iași (1653)

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

A single publication ~~by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher~~ is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" The cited source does not even mention the term "Bate of Iasi".- Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We !vote here not per wikipedians, but per Wikipedia rules, which say "multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in detail" Now, which sources discuss "Battle of Iasi (1653)", in your opinion? - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratra

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There does not appear to be any coverage of this subject outside of unreliable British Raj-era gazetteers. Searching on Google Scholar, Books, and online, I was able to find unrelated references to the name/term "Ratra" ([1]) but nothing relevant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonperson

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

Original research; Fails WP:GNG: no considerable discussion of the concept in sources. - Altenmann >talk 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The source cited is relevant and seems to be reliable, but the word "nonperson" appears only once in the body of the article, so not significant coverage. Several other appearances of the term can be found in scholarly sources: [2], [3], [4], but all of these are using the term in completely different senses. The term is just so general there is almost no way to have an article about it without WP:OR or simply having a dictionary definition (which would be pointless because the word is self-explanatory). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned "completely different senses", the word cannot be "self-explanatory". - Altenmann >talk 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Vaillancourt

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about an artist, and not found any references from reliable, independent sources to add. I do not see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST. NB an earlier version of the article says the artist has worked on cover art for sci-fi books, so have sorted this in to that category. Tacyarg (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Science fiction and fantasy, Visual arts, and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This illustrator does not meet WP criteria for inclusion per GNG ANYBIO, BASIC nor NARTIST. A "before" search revealed sources for an economist who shares the same name (who actually may be notable per WP guidelines), however this François Vaillancourt is non-notable. Netherzone (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Fantasmas

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM, I was unable to find anything other than lyrics and social media reviews online, nothing on Google Books or Scholar. The es.wiki article cites two articles in a Brazilian newspaper, but the articles in question just discuss Menudo's career as a whole and do not dedicate detail to this album. Redirect back to Menudo (band) seems appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Puerto Rico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Not notable but still a valid redirect. Ss112 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Os Ultimos Herois

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. I was unable to identify any independent coverage, having performed several searches in Portuguese on thee web, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Redirecting to Menudo (band) seems most useful to readers in the absence of sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Brazil, and Puerto Rico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Not notable. Ss112 02:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batcopter

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

Far cry from cult imaginery of Batmobile or even Batplane, this is poorly referenced fancruft. Batman occasionally used a helicopter - this could be mentioned in Batman#Technology or in the Batplane article. No need for a stand-alone list of trivia in which comics and other media this happened (WP:GNG fail, with WP:V being an issue as well as much content here is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology per nom. There's not much in the way of coverage for the Batcopter, and does not meet the notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology. This is mostly uncited trivia. It's sad to see that Neelix's obsessive trolling is still disrupting Wikipedia nearly a decade after the fact of his ousting. Softlavender (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology would indeed be the best choice here. TH1980 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology. Does not meet the notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology per nom.

TheBritinator (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology per the above discussion Master rollo (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youngboi OG

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article for artist who fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has been deleted twice before, newest incarnation of article featured several sources that looked reliable on the surface, but were copied verbatim from this Blogspot blog, where they were published first, and which solely consists of five puffery-filled articles about this artist. (N.B.: This blog was deleted shortly after this AfD was opened.) The other two sources (no authors given) are also written in this non-journalistic press release style, one of which is on the same platform (menafn.com) that copied the Blogspot article, calling its integrity into question. Rift (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and salt. News Ghana is but a few paragraphs, signed by the staff... No coverage whatsoever, nothing meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King (rapper)

AfDs for this article:

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

This was here once before and the result was to redirect as the subject was deemed to not be sufficiently notable on their own, but it seems some folks keep trying to turn it into an article, so here we are again. "First Indian pop star to walk the red carpet at Cannes" seems like a desperate attempt to establish notability over a random intersection of events, seeing as Cannes is a film festival, not a music festival. I think this should either be restored to a redirect or preferably, just deleted. If either of those is done it should also be salted until such time as someone is able to produce a draft article that actually has significant coverage from reliable sources. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Nothing notable here. I don't even know if WP:BLP1E would apply here for that last sentence, if it is indeed a desperate attempt at notability. Aside from the sources already in the article and links to his music, I can't find much else. I also get more hits about other people, especially another rapper by the name of Chris King. Procyon117 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mills (Great Train Robbery)

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. This seems like a totally un-necessary biography and a WP:CONTENTFORK of the Great Train Robbery. The subject was not individually notable, and his death was a part of the larger train robbery so having a separate article like Death of Jack Mills doesn't seem appropriate. A merge or redirect to Great Train Robbery would be an acceptable WP:ATD. 4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a redirect to Great Train Robbery (1963). Procyon117 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Vandana

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is a dictionary entry. C F A 💬 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several sources that contain significant coverage of this topic: [5] [6] [7]. There are probably more sources that are not in English. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Belongs to wiktionary. No significant coverage of the concept, even in the sources cited above. - Altenmann >talk 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):

Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA

Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA

Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA

Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan

and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing

2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Central Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I included more resources from other independent sources such as:
jomhornews.com, m.kun.uz, trt.net.tr, and sport.kg. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman can you please specify what's make a tournament notable enough; so i can send the sources that adresse it ? Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage - the sources above are WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matchday 1:

Tajikistan v Uzbekistan at sports.uz

Kyrgyzstan v Afghansitan at sport.kg

Matchday 2:

Uzbekistan v Iran at Tasnimnews.com

Uzbekistan v Iran at Sports.uz

Tajikistan v Kyrgyzstan at avesta.tj

Matchday 3:

Iran v Afghanistan at Irannewsdaily.com

Iran v Afghanistan at farsi.alarabiya.net

Iran v Afghanistan at avapress.com

Kyrgyzstan v Uzbekistan at sport.kg

Matchday 4:

Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at Turkmenportal.com

Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at sport.kg

Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at Kabar.kg

Afghanistan v Uzbekistan at sputnik.af

Afghanistan v Uzbekistan at dzen.ru

Matchday 5:

Kyrgyzstan v Iran at Tansimnews.com

Tajikistan v Afghanistan at sputnik.af

Iran

All matches reports at toopball.com

Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgystan at for.kg

Other tournament reports
Champion at rus.ozodi.org

Championship at nm.tj

Schedule at ilna.ir

Should I add more? The tournament's matches were covered by all the top news agencies in Central Asia.

Also Asian Football Confederation did post all these covering the tournament
Matchday 1

Matchday 2

Matchday 3

Matchday 4

Matchday 5

Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.

Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.

Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gdeszyn

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply[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 July 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the source is WP:PRIMARY and also it didn't say anything about a battle, but about such minor clash: On 14.4.44, in the village of Dedeshin, two Ukrainian self-defence riflemen were killed in an ambush by 7 Polish robbers.Marcelus (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
true, but the fight itself is taken from only one book and that is from a pseudo-historical one Historyk.ok (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. A single source, a primary too, is insufficient to establish the notability of the event.- Altenmann >talk 22:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

AfDs for this article:

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

All the problems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) remain. These sources are fringe and mostly unreliable even for basic factual claims, WP:SYNTH is rife, and the conclusions of fringe sources are being misrepresented as mainstream. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to compare this to the previously deleted articles? I'm curious to see what has changed to allow this article to continue to be reintroduced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Merge into IQ and race

Also, this article reads like multiple POV-forks in each section. Portions of it seem racist to imply that Jewish people are significantly smarter than anybody else, while others talk about the backlash to a single study. The genetics portion implying intelligence is also racist.

I think I would change my vote if there was more information about this put in besides that one study. Some thoughts:

Various sociologists in the 80s/90s suggested that the unique background/talmudic studies of some Jewish peoples makes them effective scholars. There were some sociologists who suggested that, as well as Malcolm Gladwell. Not sure exactly if thats true, there is likely a fair bit of back and forth on that as well as a possibly controversial opinion too.
It could be possible to include information about Model Minority myth in this article.
Agree large portions of article are WP:SYNTH including the humblebrag about the representation of Jewish people in various roles.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threw some more sourcing at it. Honestly, still think it should be merged into another appropriate article tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but I don't think that's enough. Citing Lynn as though his garbage studies mean anything, even with qualifications, is still a WP:PROFRINGE issue. As I said back in 2020, if the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, agreed.

Sidenote, why specifically ashkenazi jewish intelligence, instead of broader jewish intelligence? This article's subject is so strange to me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Sephardim are not, apparently, reported to score as high; (b) seems sensible insofar as "Jewish intelligence" probably makes people think of the Mosad instead, IDK. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Adding enough context to satisfy the requirements of WP:FRINGE would make the article a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Race and intelligence, but with a shallower pool of sources. The few bits that are specific to Ashkenazi people or Jewish people – Cochran's ideas, Talmud study, the role perceptions of intelligence might play in overall views toward Jewish people – are too scattered to make "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence" a coherent topic for an encyclopedia article. Jruderman (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a vast body of literature that discusses the special role of jewry as a (proto-)object of racism; there also is a large body of research (Cochrane, Glad...) concerning purported (self-)selection trends in historical Jewish populations; there is also a vast body of literature concerning their psychometrics. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, massive removals of text on the same day this AFD was opened[8] suggest either possible tag teaming or, at least, a problematic attitude on the part of Bluethricecreamman and Grayfell. (I will archive this page privately to document such practices in any case). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I agree with Jruderman here. So much more context is needed for this page to meet the requirements of fringe. Given how frequently this page comes up, I think we should consider salting the page or creating a redirect and locking edits for non-admin. Mason (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One question: how would it work if, for example, I myself eventually had an article that met a reasonable person's requirements for NPOV, notability etc. (Say in Draft space); now, don't tell me, the Wikigods all need to agree before it'd be reinstated? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just ask an admin to move a draft into article space. if you believe all the admins are biased wikigods i suppose thats your problem then Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ive done the process before, in general if you reasonably solve the critiques in the article, admins are happily amenable Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge without positive consensus at Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar content has been discussed numerous times on that article's talk page and I don't believe that there has ever been consensus for inclusion. Also note that the Race and intelligence article is under a special sourcing restriction imposed by ArbCom, so including non-academic sources, even in the interest of WP:FRIND, would be disallowed. If I'm not mistaken, all the fringe-independent sources in the article currently up for deletion here are non-academic. And in the absence of acceptable fringe-independent sources, the WP:FRINGE guideline is clear that we must remain silent. Generalrelative (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I was not able to find any English or Chinese sources about the subject person, and she has only won bronze medals in the Chinese Championships, failing both GNG and NSKATE. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle

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

Contested PROD. The sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. (The first source is some kind of WP:USERGENERATED list of MP3 files, the second source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the subject, and the third fails verification entirely, referencing an entirely different individual with the patronym "Qalinle.") Edited to add: an editor has added a reference to Somali Culture and Folklore, pages 63-64. I do not believe this is a valid reference; the book itself is 64 pages and according to Google Books pages 63 and 64 appear to be index pages; Qalinle does not appear as a search term. Additional qualifying sources were not found in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources that even mention this person. A Google search turns up only Wikipedia mirrors, social media, and lists of songs. CodeTalker (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia

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

Fails WP:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails WP:NOPAGE as a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of female Anglican bishops. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with most of the points you make as reasons for deletion. For example I don't think there needs to be one source dedicated to just female Anglican bishops in Australia, but a source can cover bishops in the Anglican communion generally as well as other clergy. The only point I can see as valid is that the list could be seen as a content fork of List of female Anglican bishops. I admit I only saw that other list after I created this one. In the case of it needing to be merged I think it would have been better to message me or put something on the Talk page about merging rather than marking it for deletion. I have marked this comment as Keep for now only to see if other editors want to comment. However if there is enough support to merge List of women bishops with List of female Anglican bishops... I am happy to do that and I will then continue to update the List of female bishops with the Australian ones because that is one of my areas of focus on wikipedia.LPascal (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: In case I am asked to find more sources on women bishops, I'm sure I could find one here on this list but I don't have time to do that just now https://search.worldcat.org/lists/1b9e2384-b013-48e0-b45b-911ee8d3ca3f And I think it would be impractical to expect to find a source who was a journalist or historian writing about the Anglican church who was not in some way connected to the church. If anyone writes about ordained women in the Anglican church it is usually because they are for or against and rarely are they "independent". LPascal (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: I have just found a load of newspaper articles dating back to at least early 2000s discussing women bishops as a group in the Anglican Church of Australia, so I could add those into the sources or Further reading if anyone thinks they will be better as reliable, secondary, independent sources that support a freestanding list of women bishops in Australia. Here's just a few but I will wait for consensus before I add them to a list.https://www.news.com.au/national/anglicans-elect-first-woman-bishop/news-story/670c8cfb59e29dc6a251374541369c8b https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2024/04/one-in-six-diocesan-assistant-bishops-a-woman-across-australia/ https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria-rebels-on-women-bishops-20031012-gdwiyd.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-bishops-a-step-closer-20030704-gdvzja.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-30/division-remains-after-way-cleared-for-female/685088 LPascal (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to List of female Anglican bishops as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY, if any only if the sources found are added. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks Bearian for the Keep. I am happy to both keep the article/list or merge it with List of female Anglican bishops. If consensus is reached on Keep I will certainly add in more refs to show women bishops in Australia are much discussed as a group. If the agreement is to merge, I will add them into the List of female Anglican bishops. If I merge the lists, whoever is responsible, please do not delete the old one until I have added names and refs to the LOFAB. As some of the bishops will not yet be bluelinked because they won't have an article, I will need to keep the refs in the list to show they are bishops.

On that note Dclemens1971 whatever happens to the two lists, I would appreciate your help in creating articles for the new women bishops as your user page states you focus on bishops on Wikipedia. I've been waiting for another editor to create articles for those three women bishops, but no one has started one yet, unless it's in someone's sandbox. LPascal (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cansolabao, Samar

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

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized barangays.~~ Also, coverage found in books. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 barangays are not cities/towns of the Philippines. They are just administrative divisions. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). Only those that jave backing reliable, independent, secondary sources that are not mere statistic listings or listings of schools/establishments/tourist sites, like Forbes Park, Makati, are qualified to have standalone articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I did not realize it was 40,000 barangays. Thanks for pointing it out. But, I would still keep this article per the coverage I found in books. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.

I would like to see a country whose smallest administrative divisions/units are covered by enwiki. I think that would be India (e.g. Delhi Cantonment and Haqiqat Nagar ➡️ List of neighbourhoods of Delhi). @Cocobb8:, can you give specific examples of countries whose 90-100% of smallest administrative divisions (divisions of cities/towns) are covered by enwiki? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, User:Eostrix discusses this. Granted it was apparently his personal interpretation.

As for this barangay, this is quite some distance away from the main Hinabangan town center, about 36 kilometers away. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...that AfD completely mis-applies WP:GEOLAND... SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND is a subject-specific notability guideline, and overrides local consensus. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline overrides any WP:SNG. WP:GNG overrides WP:GEOLAND. The argument here is does this place have WP:SIGCOV anywhere? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays. HueMan1 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Kholoniuk

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NSKATE is wrong and should never have been adopted. So many articles about champion skaters are being deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 June 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) 18:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011-2012 figure skating season#Ice dance 4 or to 2011–12 ISU Junior Grand Prix#Ice dance, possibly to another table in those articles. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Kropotina

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ISU_Junior_Grand_Prix_in_Croatia#Women's_singles. Achievements are insufficient to meet WP:NSKATE. I have not found any secondary sources that speak directly about her, only mentioning her in passing. By the way, references 1 and 3 do not work, and 2nd gives meager performance statistics. Tau Corvi (talk) 01:34, 11 July 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) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Solčanský

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions of his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia on 18 November 2018, possibly due to BLP concerns. The only interlanguage wiki available is Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) Wikipedia but it listed exactly the same sources as the English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the notability criteria for athletes, having competed in the Winter Olympics and achieved notable rankings in World Championships and World Cups.Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Participating in the Olympics no longer grants inherent notability. Redirect as a WP:ATD per the nom. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics as the subject doesn’t meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Could not find any WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above or to Luge at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Doubles#Results. Doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia's Kitchen

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

An orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."
2. "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne". The New Zealand Herald. 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."
3. Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."
4. Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."
5. Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.
  The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."
  - Here^{Internet Archive} is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
    1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
    2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
    3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
    4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
    5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
    6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
    7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
    8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
    Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 6 July 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) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources mentioned in the comment above are more than enough for notability, easily passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Assam separatist movements. A lot of the references talk about this wider topic, and perhaps the even wider topic of political alignment in Assam. The idea is broader than just being related to United Liberation Front of Asom, so I'm not sure a merger there would work effectively. CMD (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moruf Oseni

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

Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BoraVoro:, who has been fighting the relentless efforts from COI/SPAs to prematurely undraftify this page. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've reviewed the talk page, and read the DRV in more detail, I'm changing to delete, send back to draft and enforce requiring using WP:AFC to recreate by any COI editors. I applaud @Michael Ugbodu for their clear statement of COI on the talk page, and for hunting up promising sources. However, paid editing COI should also be listed on the editor's user talk page, and paid-COI article drafts are indeed supposed to go through WP:AFC, not be promoted into mainspace by a COI editor. This is not just bureaucracy, it is exactly there where independence of sources, article bias, etc can be reviewed best, insulating from the fact that a paid-COI editor has much more energy to argue than uncompensated volunteers if there is any debate. We've now had (at least) multiple days at DRV and now 2.5 days here where no-one independent has truly investigated notability and independence of the secondary sources used. Given the COI, this is a must, and while it may be frustrating to a paid editor and their client to have to wait, it would equally be unfair to keep this article in mainspace absent someone independent, experienced with local (Nigerian) sourcing, to verify, jumping the queue vs other paid articles that are going through the (admittedly clogged) AFC pipeline. I'm happy to change my vote if someone independent does investigate those sources during the rest of this AFD. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to come to a consensus on the main issues with the page. The sources for the awards section are all newspaper sources and not primary sources, so can be considered credible. However, I think the second paragraph on the achievements section can be better written or scrapped as it sounds promotional.

Let's hear what others think as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's trickier, Michael. We have a lot of trouble with CV-like COI articles which do use secondary (newspaper) sources, but they are not sufficiently independent of the article subject. I'm (probably) not notable in wikispeak, but would not become so just because I persuaded a newspaper (or two) to run an article where they just parroted what I told them. That's why we need someone who doesn't have a COI to look into that (I can't, since I know nothing about Nigerian newspaper writing habits!) Martinp (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:22, 6 July 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) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added 4 reliable sources with a significant coverage.The subject has generally pass GNG per position he’s holding being the CEO of Wema Bank. I have seen multiple reliable sources with a significant coverage such as [9],[10],[11],[12],[13]and [14] are enough to establish notability

DXdy FX (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? 1 has no coverage of the man. 2 and 4 are copies of the same press release, also appearing e.g. here and here. 3 is entirely a quoted press release. 5 is another unmarked press release, as also seen for example here, here, and here. 6 also has no biographical coverage, merely a few quotes.
If you think these constitute GNG-satisfying coverage, I have to ask: are you, like every other editor who has taken an interest in this page, being paid to do so, or are you merely incompetent? —Cryptic 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Tebyani

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

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Tebyani

is a notable figure in the field of music, particularly recognized for being the first Iranian conductor to hold a doctoral degree. His contributions to the music industry are significant and well-documented. Here are key points highlighting his notability and accomplishments:

Academic Achievements: Mehran Tebyani holds a doctoral degree, making him the first Iranian conductor to achieve this level of academic success in the field.
Publications: He has published a book in Iran, which contributes to his recognition as a scholar and expert in music.
Media Coverage: Tebyani has been interviewed by numerous newspapers in Iran, demonstrating his influence and prominence in the Iranian music scene.
Radio Sessions: During his time in Los Angeles, he hosted a radio session dedicated to the history of music for one year, further showcasing his expertise and commitment to educating the public about music.
Concerts and Performances: He has conducted several concerts at UCLA in Los Angeles, adding to his international recognition and illustrating his active involvement in the music community.

Dr.Hana jalili (talk) 06:35, 10 July 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) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Draft -- as it is written, there aren't enough sources that establish notability beyond a doubt (the Lede has an interesting fact and cool accomplishment but probably is not enough on its own to get past GNG or a Music notability guideline). The author should continue to work on getting sources that point directly to notability (translated quotations from Iranian publications would help). On the WP:PROF side, it's a case of TOOSOON (often composers and conductors who are also academics pass the GNG or NMUSIC bar before they pass the WP:PROF criteria. -- any one of them is, however, enough to be a keep vote).

List of country subdivision flags in Africa

AfDs for this article:

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

Just closed to draftify and immediately recreated by the same editor. Thanks to the merged content it is no longer a G4, but none of the material added addresses the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa. If this closes as draftify or delete, suggest protection to avoid this situation again. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "flags of country subdivisions of Africa", and what is shown are the flags of country subdivisions of Africa. By draftifying it, you are removing a whole list of flags that some people may find useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a gallery anymore, I converted into informative tables. I hope this will help 2A02:A453:D05E:0:7859:2E95:3DE6:2A4A (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It remains un sourced, which is the chief issue. Please log in when you edit. Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many sources have been added now. This should not be deleted. Eehuiio (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review sourcing guidelines. fotw.info is not an acceptable source, nor are many of the others. This is why it remains functionally unsourced. Star Mississippi 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is unsourced, it still has information that fits the title. Deleting it would be useless and unnecessary. Eehuiio (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify over current draft with historymerge (the current list article at least looks better). Eehuiio, as Star Mississippi notes, neither fotw.info nor crwflags.com nor others are reliable sources. For the purpose of this list's entries, I believe official government sources would be reasonable to use despite not necessarily being independent. The alternative is that every entry that is not reliably sourced is removed/commented out per WP:V/WP:BURDEN, which would remove most content from this article; historymerge would be needed in this case anyway. If this is moved to draft, then please put it through the Articles for Creation process per the AFC template once you believe that the flags are properly sourced; please don't move this back to mainspace in a deficient state where it is likely to be speedily deleted, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page also has other sources, so it isnt completely unsourced. Also, it still fulfills the title and is useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

post-relisting, confirm my draftification !vote, ref per comments of BD2412, etc. If it's fixed in draft and sent through AFC, then good. If it's left unfixed then so be it. If it's moved back to somewhere in mainspace in a deficient form (yes, protect away), then consider that a WP:G4 with broad latitude ref this AFD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator commentyes, the reopening was Involved, but I do not believe that is an issue as it's clearly not a discussion for a NAC. Cleaning up redirects now Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all tired of whack a sock. @Eehuiio if you run into issues editing here, just remember to log in first. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've protected against logged out edits. If any admin thinks this is Involved, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and salt. Draftification makes sense when ~~an editor~~ editors familiar with our notability guidelines ~~offers~~ are available to work on the article. Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. If we draftify this again, it'll bounce right back to mainspace as soon as we turn our head away, and we'll be back here in a couple of weeks for the 3rd nomination. Salting in this case is only meant to force the author to go throuigh AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The rationale by Own makes sense to me and as a NP patroller I am frustrated when an editor ignores process. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Move-lock the draft and create-lock the page. The draft will either be worked on in draftspace or die on the vine. Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article. BD2412 T 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree with BD2412 that the page should be SALTed until the draft is accepted at AfC. I also believe that a comment to that effect, with a link to this discussion, should be added to the draft for the benefit of AfC reviewers. I disagree with OwenX that Draftification makes sense when an editor familiar with our notability guidelines offers to work on the article. Anyone can edit a draft in the draftspace. As a result of this AfD, there will also now be likelly be a set of eyes on the draft. Someone could also agree to work with the author. Edited 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC). I also disagree with the contention that Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. Draftification is actually the best way to force that editor to try to learn those P&Gs so that they can get the article through AfC. I share Lightburst's frustrat[ion] when an editor ignores process, but I do not believe that it is a valid reason to delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, voorts, and I partially amended my !vote above accordingly. Yes, drafts are available for everyone to work on, and this AfD may very well bring more attention to the page. But while the AfC process was indeed intended to teach editors our P&G, the ability to move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC effectively negates that objective, allowing a SPA to circumvent the process. I'd gladly undelete the page to draft if a non-SPA requests it, or even history-merge with a new draft. But realistically, I doubt anyone but the original author has any interest in this page. I agree with BD2412's statement that Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article, but contend that this is exactly the case here, where sources do not establish notability, and the only one requesting a draft is an editor who doesn't seem concerned with our notability guidelines, and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to sneak the page back to mainspace. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick side note. Flags of regions of Egypt is completely unsourced. The absence of sourcing in the nominated article revealed that, and if the latter article were fixed, it could transclude into this one as is. BD2412 T 21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article it is a part of the List of country subdivision flags, which is split into continents due to its size. If this article were deleted, this makes the list of country subdivision flags incomplete, while this is useless to readers. I'm converting from galleries to tables with reliable sources. 2A02:A453:D05E:0:8431:8C89:A5D1:202C (talk) 10:58, 12 July 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) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Henry

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

No sources given that meet WP:GNG (her father's website, herself talking, some name drops, and dubiously reliable articles), I didn't find any better ones, and the article also fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:ANYBIO. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Trari

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

Fails WP:GNG. I made this article at a time when WP:NFOOTY was a thing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable semi-professional footballer, who doesn’t pass WP:SIGCOV. All I found is statistics. Tau Corvi (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Segun Toyin Dawodu

AfDs for this article:

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

The references are certainly not up to scratch, citations are limited (Semantic scholar lists only one paper with 100+ citations and attributes an h-index of 2), and I don't believe any of these fellowships confer inherent notability either. A previous AFD in 2012 reached no consensus, with just one keep vote. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Medicine, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG, and the three fellowships that are not of recent organizations don't seem to be selective enough to meet WP:PROF#C3. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the fellowship awards seem to be of the paid member sort as none of them seem to have been accompanied by any sort of press-release/announcement naming him as a member of a fellowship class (Fellow vs Honorary Fellow seems to be the distinction in these societies). If I am wrong about this, I am glad to change my vote to keep, as a prestigious fellowship from most of these organizations would be enough for WP:PROF#C3. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Michael is correct, does not meet WP:PROF#C3, or any other element of WP:NPROF. My reading is that the listed fellowships are all "pay-to-play" memberships at the "fellow" level, except for the American Academy of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine - but that organization doesn't have a program for honoring notables with fellowships at all. Probably it's a fellowship awarded for study or research, which is strictly run of the mill stuff not adding to notability. An editorial board membership within the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation doesn't suffice either - and I can't even confirm that as his name is not listed on the organization's website as an editor of anything. Qflib (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nomination. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Park

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. References are routine news reports about individual initiates when it was inaugurated. The organization itself lacks sufficient coverage. Government organization has no inherent notability, WP:ORGSIG. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Institute of Local Administration

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. WP:PRIMARY references are used for sourcing. The content is mostly copied from the official website. Govt organizations are not automatically notable (WP:ORGSIG). Gan Favourite (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Littlest Man Band

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There's this in The Reader (newspaper) (which directly copies much of the text from the Wikipedia article) and a review by Punktastic. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Scott Klopfenstein (although I'm not sure if he himself is wiki-notable either). toweli (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unfortunately a failure of GNG here, with too few reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article. The review in Punknews is a user review. Geschichte (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Gazi

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

Non notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~: Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:~~

1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'

I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks. Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp University

AfDs for this article:

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

The term is indeed used in India. However, I don't think it has scope beyond a definition. It can be easily integrated in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution (WP:CFORK). Although start-class, it pretty much looks like a future repository for dumping all fake news spread on WhatsApp. For serious cases, there is already Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NEO. The topic is better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, and the term is not separately notable. Many of the sources here just contain uses of the term but actually cover the topic (and not the term). Maybe merge a brief mention of the definition in the NDTV article. hinnk (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: i added some of WP:RS references. and this phrase clearly passes WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with @Youknowwhoistheman --BeLucky (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Gajdošík

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

Yet another long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer who seems to have a minor career. According to Soccerway, his career in higher level clubs lasted between 107 and 800 minutes. He went missing from 2015 until 2023, but came back to play for third tier club FK Beluša, then disappeared again. I can't find any better source than passing mentions and database from my searches. Article fails WP:GNG overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Athel cb (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any secondary sources. He is also not mentioned in the articles of the clubs he played for, so there is nowhere to redirect. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik

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

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [15] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [16]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway~~, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?

Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [17][18][19][20][21][22]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. ~~Not commenting on the rest, if I may~~. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you ~~added~~ presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.

The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [23] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.

What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretative bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reasonable doubt that Sunflowers... is a notable film. It clearly meets WP:NFILM #3, and I have seen for myself the multiple reliable sources documenting this claim to notability.

And I will say again: the point of WP:CREATIVE, whether for authors or filmmakers, is to offer guidance for the atypical case documented at WP:INHERITED - people who are specifically responsible for a notable creative work, whether as authors or as film directors, are therefore notable. That's what a significant or well-known work is - a notable one - and there is no consensus to change this well-established standard to require more than one work for this principle to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: I never said that more than one work is needed to meet WP:DIRECTOR nor did I mention WP:INHERITED myself (I never do). That's not my point. One notable work is enough imv. But, allow me to repeat myself one last time, WP:NFILM#3, that you mention, requires a MAJOR award, that's the word in the guideline. Major. Again, the Cinéfondation Premier prix is certainly an achievement for a student film but I wouldn't call it a major award. (See this, for example). And I find it therefore quite reasonable, even considering the existing coverage, to doubt whether that student short film is notable enough according to the requirements of Wikipedia. If it is not, a redirect for its student-director seems to be, so far, the kindest outcome imv. If everyone thinks it is, feel free to create the page about that short student film. I for one, would wait for its director to become a professional one and/or for the short film to attract in-depth attention from reviewers who might have watched it. But that's just me. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and discussion is continuing up to the time of relisting. We have basically two very different interpretations of policies and that is not easy to reconcile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have invited Martineden83, Οἶδα, Bearcat, Extended Cut, The One I Left, Zoolver Laurenschneider210, Jenny8lee, Sj and Fuzheado to draw a wider range of informed but uninvolved editors to this discussion as it has been relisted without any further comments. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discussion above seems rather like hair-splitting to me. The question of whether the award is given "to the film" or "to the filmmaker" is a moot point that has nothing to do with notability vis-à-vis film awards, for starters — regardless of whether the award is technically "for the film" or "for the filmmaker", the filmmaker is still the one who has to walk up on stage to accept it and give a thank-you speech either way, because the film is not itself a sentient entity, so that argument is introducing a meaningless distinction. For another thing, the question of whether our article about Cinéfondation is "about the award" or "about the organization that presents the award" is also a meaningless and irrelevant distinction, because you could make that same "how much is or isn't this article about the event vs. about the organization that presents the event" argument about every single article we have about any event at all, so that's just not a meaningful point of debate when it comes to questions of whether an award makes its winners notable or not. And finally, the award was presented at Cannes, which is one of the most famous and notable film festivals in the world.
To be fair, not all of the films or directors listed in the Cinéfondation article have articles yet, but that's also not a notability issue — any of them can, and will, have articles if and when somebody gets around to writing articles about them. And there is additionally no rule that filmmakers always have to have made feature films before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles — short films do tend to be harder to write good, GNG-compliant articles about, since they tend to get less coverage than feature films do, but films are not automatically non-notable just because they're short, and can absolutely still pass notability criteria (such as winning notability-making awards) just the same, so "short vs. feature" doesn't impact notability criteria for films or their makers either: that's a question of whether you can support the article with decent sources or not, and not a question of the film's length itself.
So, really, what it comes down to is whether the article features enough WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to properly establish that notability criteria have been met — and while I'd suggest replacing footnote #7 with a secondary source instead of a primary one, all of the other six footnotes are just fine and absolutely add up to enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – First place short at a sidebar is not significant coverage of the director. The award guarantees a future slot higher up in the Cannes program for a first feature, but until then the existing coverage pertains to the film. If we were discussing a winner of the Caméra d'or, Prix Un Certain Regard or Palme d'Or du Court Métrage this would be different. But it feels like we've gone several notches down and called it a major award because it's Cannes adjacent. An article for the film would however pass WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Director's Fortnight, the Semaine de la critique and the Queer Palm, all of which are clearly notability-making awards presented at Cannes, are also sidebars rather than "the main competition" — so if the word "sidebar" were any kind of notability extinguisher on its own, at least half of all the film articles we have whose notability is Cannes-derived would have to be deleted. The distinction that matters when it comes to Cannes is festival vs. market, not festival main program vs festival sidebar program. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My contention was that the Cinéfondation sidebar is particularly eclipsed by the official selection and other sections. I do not believe first place at Cinéfondation is a major award conferring significant coverage to the director themself. Unfortunately I do not believe this matter will be resolved any deeper than the 'hair-splitting' discussion that already played out above. So I will resign the issue to my vote. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the notability guideline page for BLPs does not mention anywhere that significant coverage is a requirement for someone to pass WP:DIRECTOR or WP:ANYBIO. I believe we have more content about Chidananda S Naik than about the short film that won the award, so redirecting would only result in the loss of content, leaving us with a very short stub article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are merely repeating the discussion Mushy Yank already developed above. Reply there. Οἶδα (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Creating an article for the film and redirecting to that seems reasonable Laurenschneider210 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Security Office

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

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [24]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those secondary sources is about the Special Security Office. The Rise of the Mavericks book is only about the Air Force branch. Say ocean again (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to classified information in the United States. Fails WP:ORG. There's no inherited notability for being related to multiple arms of the US government. Say ocean again (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Biewald

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

Already did a cleanup of the article, but I do not think it meets the required depth of WP:BIO. I would suggest redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. which is the notable company he co-founded. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naše novine

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

It existed, but I couldn't find sources to add confirming it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Dorta

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

Article about not notable lawyer. Note- Article was created by the subject. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Florida. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for a lawyer, no different of a career than any other thousands of such people across the country. Nothing notable that i can see... Went to school, graduated and works as a lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Bukit Bandaraya

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not satisfy WP:GNG; no significant coverage on the school. N niyaz (talk) 12:06, 13 July 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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 20–25 light-years

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Administrator note The previous nomination was an April Fool's joke, so I am removing the "previous AFDs" box. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these could be consolidated a bit, perhaps in 10 ly segments rather than 5, but this seems like a valid navigational and informational list; most of the stars have their own articles and there's good data and sourcing in the tables, so this is not just a directory. It's a key component of Lists of stars. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced info, focusing on what is most relevant to the denizens of Planet Earth rather than on every solar object show these list articles are clearly not a directory of everything in the universe. I can think of better ways to organize the information, but that's clearly an editorial decision rather than a NOT issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listing all the star systems in one list would be too long, so this is a logical way to divide them. Valid encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fits WP:LISTPURP and is a useful navigational source for nearby stars and star systems. Procyon117 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all that is what encyclopedias are for, still would like if the segments were by 10 ly Teixant (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All these lists are very useful, provide navigation into pages and have valuable information, hence satisfy the purpose of a list. Don't see any violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY here, it would be a violation if we were listing all stars up to thousands of light-years e.g. List of star systems within 5,000–5,500 light-years, which is not the case.

21 Andromedae (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the number of stars on each page should increase roughly with the cube of the distance, so the later lists are clearly incomplete. A cut-off mark for building these lists is lacking; the local neighborhood of the Sun is variously defined from 12 pc out to 2 kpc, so these could extend our quite a ways. Praemonitus (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:snow. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New England Immortals

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Sources in the article are primary and/or affiliated. Does not turn up any news media coverage in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to USA Rugby League#New England Immortals. Mn1548 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept that merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - it looks like this could perhaps have been WP:BLARed rather than being brought to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill I thought it had been PROD'd but maybe I misread the history. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Product teardown

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

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Rayne

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

Redirect undone. Zero indication of notability. No coverage by any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for deletion has been compared to nazism. That's Godwin's law for you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw that you nominated me for the deletion of my post about a video game character named Anton Rayne. We cannot have coverage of too many sources when the character is only text-based. I did an undone redirect since I find it unfair that the character cannot have a wiki. The source used was mostly from the game's codex (which you can read in-game this is just an online version) and their developers so it is a reliable source, site from Torpor Games themselves(https://codex.torporgames.com/). All information on the character is really what games tell you about him and nothing added more. I really find it unfair since Wikipedia is supposed to be a dictionary of everything not just important characters. This character is a community loved one as are all others. I saw the complaints and comparisons to nazism. I of course dont justify it, it is probably a "Suzerain" fan like me.

I am looking foward to a response, Andrew(AntonRad) AntonRad (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community reception towards a character is generally irrelevant on Wikipedia, as we are not a fandom site. Video game characters (or anything, for that matter) generally only get articles if there is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I understand if you might be frustrated or find it unfair that your article was nominated for deletion, but this has been the widely accepted standard for a long time. See WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I agree we need to look at the characters objectively and writing Anton like that needs info mostly from the games codex which i did, but i struggle to understand that Anton Rayne was mentioned in suzerain video game wiki and its not ok to write a short article about the games protagonist?

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suzerain (video game): Redirect to the game, I don't find critical discussion of the character in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I appreciate you concern about redirection and the characters media popularity, but this was made just for those who did read Suzerain video game article to click on Anton Rayne and find out about him with more information about the games protagonist, but thanks for the comment

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. The article creator seems to completely misunderstand what an average article for a video game character is supposed to be, and that Wikipedia is not a fandom site. Seeing the nomination get compared to Nazism made my day, though. λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I hope i didnt do too bad to be honest. I didnt want it to be seen as a fandom page, as i wanted it to be mostly from games codex. Anton Rayne is mentioned in Suzerain wiki page and i thought it would be good to create one for the protagonist.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Nonsense article. No indication of notability at all. Mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne; the rest was obviously AI-generated. C F A 💬 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

thank you for the comment. You are not right in the first part its not mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne since that is not that much of a reliable source, side from the characters codex, whats mostly copied from is the characters codex in game which can be found on Torpors website! As for this the "rest was obviously AI-generated" AI doesnt even know to write about Suzerain i think, but i ll give it to ya the section for Antons policies really looks AI.

Best, Andrew. AntonRad (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination fails BEFORE; a check of Google News shows a piece in PC Gamer with an in-depth review of the game explaining this character. There are other hits, not an overwhelming number and some of them look iffy, but clearly not zero easy-to-find RS coverage. We know from Commander Shepard that it's possible to write an article about the role a player assumes in an RPG game, so really, the proper assertion here should be that there's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, aside from the game, not that no coverage exists. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

i appreciate your honesty and i do agree to you to some point. Since it Anton Rayne is mentioned in suzerain wiki article i think it was ok to make one about him. There's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, which is true to be fair but that's exactly why i wrote it from the players perspective, since player does everything Anton does in Suzerain.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suzerain (video game) - What sources there are specifically on this character are not enough to justify a split from the main topic of the game. The source found by Jclemens can be added to the main game article, which needs to have its reception section beefed up, but nothing from this current article should be merged, as it is devoid of any reliable, secondary sources actually supporting any of it. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

i somewhat agree but we shouldn't split the topic of the game just at least make it so this article or a brief article is present at suzerain(video-game)wiki page.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article itself smacks of ChatGPT, and fails WP:NOT even before we get to whether it's notable (which it probably isn't). Please "be better" when contributing articles (and no response is necessary to this, I will not be swayed either way). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, i know you said not to respond but this was my first article every i will try to do better

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Travieso

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

Tribute article for a murdered rapper. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs; no notable biographical details prior to his death. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musical performer. [25], a reward for solving the murder, then nothing for coverage before or since. Had he not passed away, would not be notable for inclusion in wiki and his passing doesn't change that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another case of a murdered rapper whose minor musical accomplishments while alive fail our notability requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. Nobody reported on his music until the news about his murder, but that does not make him notable per WP:NVICTIM either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, and his death does not make him notable either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a million times over. Full of meaningless information about anything but his threadbare career. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Times#Related_publications, agree not notable in its own right but a sentence here would suffice. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism

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

Does not fulfill the WP:Notability guideline as it lacks significant coverage that would justify a standalone article outside of Agriculture in Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I really don't understand the deletion rationale here. Sectorally-specific articles are obvious and common sub-articles within the economic topic tree. There are three other country-olive-specific articles already: Olive production in India, Olive cultivation in Palestine, and Olive production in Switzerland. There is already some coverage of this topic at Olive#Judaism and Christianity, and a quick WP:BEFORE finds a huge number of sources covering various aspects of the quite broad topic at hand, including those touching upon aspects not yet included in this underdeveloped article [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] etc. If I was to articulate a potential issue with the current article, it is that the subject may be too broad, covering a few different topics that might be better separated. However, that would result in more articles, not fewer, and the current scope is broad in a way that exceeds the scope of Agriculture in Israel. CMD (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is not that it is country-specific, but that, as you mentioned, merges a country-specific topic with a religion; a merge that has not received significant coverage in RS. I would support the split into two articles, but I don’t think the Judaism part has received any more significant coverage, therefore, I would eventually support moving current article into an Israel-only scope instead. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links between Judaism and Israel have been explored in RS, including specifically with olives [33][34]. There is also research into the broader question of the intersection of Judaism with agricultural practices in Israel and the practical impacts that has[35][36][37] (and for fun here is a really odd paper tangentially stretching from that topic). If those links were less explicit, an article could still be built as a WP:BROADCONCEPT, which the current one appears to be doing. As stated, I don't believe the article should be doing this, but fixing that is not something that involves deletion. CMD (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the first link [38], a paper by an Israeli university, there doesn't seem to be specific coverage of the topic, aside from passing mentions; that is how I have been interpreting significant coverage anyway, to require at least a dedicated chapter or topic. I can't seem to open the second link however. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I took a look at a few of the sources, and I'm not convinced that Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism is itself a thing. Much of the content is suitable for the encyclopedia, but some of it belongs in History of agriculture in Israel and some of it might do well as "Olives in Judaism" or part of Jewish symbolism but I'm not seeing that the physical value of olives as an agricultural product and the symbolic value of olives in Judaism are established to be the same thing in the article in its current form. Also—and maybe I just have too much current events on my mind—the authors may take an interest in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel or in drafting an article compiling all the arguments for and against the existence of Israel as a state because maybe this isn't really about olives. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree. The article only deals with the historical and religious perspective. I don't think Israel's legitimacy depends on Olives. I made sure that nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned here to avoid further problems. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being respectfully disagreed with is so refreshing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Just trying to be polite AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sarcasm. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The olive tree and its fruits hold profound significance in Jewish history. It's one of the most important trees in Judaism and holds the designation of the national tree of the State of Israel. Its historical and cultural relevance extends from biblical times through the periods of the Israelite Kingdoms, continuing into the era of the new Yishuv. This article specifically covers the topic from both the historical and religious perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article by the GNG yet limit the scope. Anything with "in Israel and Judaism" in the title will be problematic. If we examine the Olive article, it will become clear that Judaism is already well covered there and this article is a legitimate SPINOFF. Israel is not well-covered. For example, the article should mention that the olive tree is the national tree of Israel. So no need to spin anything Israeli off. Same with Agriculture in Israel. That article should have more information on different fruits, including olives. gidonb (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be three overlapping but identifiable topics clustered together here: Olive production in Israel (modern), Olive production in ancient Israel, and Olives and olive trees in Judaism. Would you say your comment is to limit this current article to the third of these topics, and direct other information elsewhere? CMD (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Olives and olive trees in Judaism should be the title and content. Olive production in ancient Israel is really included in this topic as the reality in ancient Israel is eternalized through Judaism (books that have been copied, rules that have been made based on that reality). Thus an article Olive production in ancient Israel would have a too large overlap ("CONTENTFORK"). The Israel content should be distributed between Agriculture in Israel and Olive, with some content relevant to both, as legitimate parents/siblings in this respect. Olive production in Israel would be a legitimate SPINOFF of both if there were enough content at the level above. There isn't. To the extent ancient Israel is purely based on historic production/cultivation (not the derivative of laws based thereon), also based in archeology, this is legitimate background/history for both articles. So theoretically that could be legitimate SPINOFF if it grew organically. I just don't see that happen. gidonb (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this article essentially covers three different things, Ancient olive production in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea, the religious significance of olives in Judaism, and their relation to the contemporary state of Israel. Thought these things might be related, I would warn against collapsing them into one article, simply on account of it being too broad. I suggest the contents of this article are either 1) merged into other articles: History of ancient Israel and Judah, Ancient Israelite cuisine, Agriculture in Israel, etc. or 2) narrowed down, perhaps focusing on Olives in ancient Israel or perhaps Olives in Judaism/Olives in the Bible. It seems that there really isn't enough content about the present day state of Israel to have a separate article on that. digiulio8 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there is enough content on Olives and olive trees in Judaism. In fact, if we would merge that to the parent we'd create a situation of UNDUE. Hence, for this part of the article, it is a justified SPINOFF. Also, Judaism is not limited to the "Bible". That's a projection of Christianity. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why I argue for either merging this content or narrowing its scope. It is really not robust if you brake the sections down and should be mentioned in these relevant kind of "parent articles" in the first place because some of these olives are scarcely talked about at the moment, maybe indicating that the information just be merged. Right now, I'm unsure if there is actually enough content on Olives in Judaism and I believe it would have to continue to be expanded because it continues to collapse: 1) the practices and history of Ancient Israelites, contemporary Jewish practices, and Jewish religious texts. Of course, these are all related (and sometimes these points are connected well within the article), however, at this point, the often scope seems too broad and the topics disjointed. Perhaps it is better to expand on first as a draft in order to justify SPINOFF with a proper scope. I am unsure.

And I am aware of the fact that Judaism does not adhere to the Christian Bible per se and has other associated texts; this is simply for the purpose of congruence with similar articles such as Animals in the Bible, List of Hebrew Bible events, and so on, you could very well name it something else that is really just semantics, in addition to the fact that the use of "(Hebrew) Bible" (or "Tanakh") could include various texts outside of the Torah that remain relevant religiously and could expand on what is already written. digiulio8 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 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 Keep (non-admin closure)- Per WP:SNOW, there is very clearly not going to be any consensus in favour of deletion or redirecting, and the rationale suggested by most of those supporting deletion/redirecting (that no opinion polls had been held) is now longer the case‎. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election[edit]

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

The last UK general election was on 4 July 2024. No opinion polls for the next election have been held since then and are unlikely to be held for a while. A case of WP:TOO SOON John B123 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. John B123 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the UK is a large developed country, the first opinion polls for this topic are bound to be published in less than two weeks.Castroonthemoon (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been viewing these UK opinion polling pages daily for a long time, including periods a long way before a general election. I am interested in long-term trends and (polling) reactions to events. For example, I would like to see polling reacions in the first weeks AFTER the general election (now!) to get an idea of the public's reaction to the election result. Please keep these pages and allow them to be updated as they were up until the general election. This page is very useful. Hill Vista (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Hill Vista (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic[reply]
Keep If you look at the first polling following the 12th December 2019 General Election, it took place within a month of the election. It doesn't make any sense to delete this article merely because there haven't been any polls within the first nine days. There were also several polls within the first month after both 2017 and 2015 elections. LarryJayCee (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Opinion polling has begun and is on the article (party approval rating and leader approval rating). If we delete this article now it'll only be recreated in a week or two anyway as wider polling resumes. I'm not sure I see the point in deleting an article that will inevitably be recreated soon after. — Czello ^(music) 08:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage party approval ratings and leader approval ratings are a reflection of peoples opinion of the last election not the next election. --John B123 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:OR, especially given that the polls took place after the election. — Czello ^(music) 10:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also the sooner that the page is put in place, the better as this will ensure that early opinion polls after the last election are included and therefore any trends in polling from that date will be better defined for viewers looking for the data in a few years time. Crdent (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG, which is what is relevant here. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre statement. There are such articles for every general election going back some time. 2601:5C6:8180:BAD0:D093:4127:6C22:827C (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling for now and recreate article when more polling has been completed and the results published. Redtree21 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Redtree21 It will take a while before there will be enough data to merit a standalone article, until then it should be merged into Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling N1TH Music (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no point in deleting it when it will simply be recreated again in a short while. G-13114 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fish and chips condiment if it keeps getting remade WP:TOOSOON? This sounds like it shouldn’t be too hard to drum up a draft, and convince a mop to give it the go ahead, when the time and resource is right. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect as suggested above until there are polls to include. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)~~ (Keep) now that a poll has been posted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are already four polls in there. — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those are opinion polls for the next election. As the article clearly states: As of 12 July 2024, no voting intent opinion polls have yet been published since the 2024 general election --John B123 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn't titled 'voting intention opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election'. Approval rating polls are on the page, since it is a page about polling related to the next election. All of the polls on the page are opinion polls. Benocalla2 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is entitled Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. None of the polls are related to that. --John B123 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then your argument should first be we shouldn't include approval polls (which talk pages would reject, since they are polls relating to opinion), before you argue we delete a page which will be recreated soon after. Talk pages exist to weed out these debates, you can't just nominate a page for deletion because you disagree with what's included Benocalla2 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the page for deletion firstly because there are no opinion polls for the next election yet. The polls you mention are supplemental to the main subject of the page. Secondly, as there are no opinion polls for the next election, there can be no references for them to establish WP:GNG (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Without GNG there can be no article. The fact that almost certainly there will be polls in the future is irrelevant, at the present time the article does not meet the notability requirements. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of GNG, as it's been brought up more than once now – on a technical level that could be argued, but realistically it's simply not true. Yes, opinion polling will always be notable, even if the 'main' opinion polling, (rather than approval ratings) has not begun yet. It's difficult to argue this fails GNG when we all know the article will be recreated in a week or two anyway. Deleting it on this technicality seems to run afoul of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. — Czello ^(music) 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benocalla2 Generally, there is a separate article for leadership approval polling. But that’s besides the main point, there’s all of 4 polls, there is no reason this can’t be merged into the also small article for the general election itself until there are at least a couple dozen voting intent polls. Its simply easier to manage. N1TH Music (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect For goodness sake, do not create articles that have literally zero content about the actual subject just to have an article. This belongs in the main article until actually warranted. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not "literally zero content". Four polls are already in there. — Czello ^(music) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But those 4 polls are not Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election which is the page title, so in relation the the page title "literally zero content" is a fair comment.--John B123 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as suggested above by G-13114, there's very little reason to delete this article when in a matter of days it'll probably have more poll entries on it than your typical NZ election would have in total by the end of their government's 3 year term. This in addition to the fact that despite not being any post-election voting intention polls as of yet, there already exist a handful of leadership rating polls conducted after the election on the page already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahnamate (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article will obviiously become more important over the next 4-5 years (after which it will becone a historical record) - why delete something that would inevitably have to be created and why waste other editor's time? Roy Bateman (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there's little reason to delete the article since it will be recreated within a week of its deletion. The article shouldn't have been created before any VI polling was done, however that isn't justification to delete it. There are still opinion polls on the page (party and leadership approval) and such it still fulfils the title purpose. This discussion is a waste of time, and it is preventing editors from actually contributing to wikipedia. Opinion polls aren't just voting intention, they are polls asking for public opinion. Benocalla2 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election for now and recreate article when more polling has been completed and the results published. 217.79.149.203 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it's abundantly clear that it won't be long until this is definitely a justified page to have. It's not as if there's a chance that there will never be justification for this page. 146.90.4.163 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Almost certain that this will change within the next fortnight, not to mention other means of polling, if not approval data, listed upon the page; Having acknowledged that there are no apparent documents of official opinion polling as of yet, it is suffice to say further shall become available shortly. Temporarily deleting the article until recreation after opinion polling is published is simply beyond futile.

TheRevisionary (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article will be relevant later; there is no point deleting this, as polling will appear within 4 weeks. This would be better rather than deleting this and creating this again. Gordonltycall (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is now national VI polling and there will be more in the coming weeks. CipherRephic (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Per WP:G11 and WP:A7 by User:Deb (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Emeka Chukwudi[edit]

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

Few reliable sources, likely fails WP:BIO. If not, this article needs some cleanup to meet WP:MOS Lordseriouspig 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lordseriouspig 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as G11 since it perfectly qualifies under such criterion. There was no need for bringing this to AfD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I added A7 to the G11, there was no need for an AfD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: per A7. Nightrises10 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefly (film series) characters[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible redirect to TV series, but unsure merge is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is completely unrelated to the TV series Firefly (TV series), so don't redirect there. Firefly (film series) doesn't exist anymore (speedied in April).– sgeureka ^t•c 10:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the film series was speedied, this subsarticle has even less reason to exist. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the main flim article was deleted. There is already a character list for the overall series at List of Firefly (TV series) characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to ~~producer/~~network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of trees of the northeastern United States

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

A guide article that violates WP:NOTGUIDE. dePRODed in 2018 with the rationale "valid information". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Who thought that Wikipedia was the proper venue for something like this? 9t5 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unvarnished field guide key, not an encyclopedic article. NOTGUIDE indeed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Elmidae's statement and WP:NOTGUIDE Lordseriouspig 07:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTGUIDE. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be copied to Wikiguide if someone cares to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikiguide? SEWilco (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Procyon117 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bduke (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Robbie

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

Does not contain any reliable, verifiable references and no other sources can be found through a web search, adherence to WP:ENTERTAINER is dubious; limited evidence of significant coverage in multiple notable productions. Redtree21 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. Redtree21 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of images of her, not much sigcov in RS Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays[edit]

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Israel. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Sources in the article mentioned the subject in passing, some are PR materials except one that give significant coverage and seems reliable. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confused by Delete argument that states a source provides significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, much of the article reeks of WP:PROMO as well. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid

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

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [39][40] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.

Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.

The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.

The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor (given name)

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

No indication that this is a double name for any of the entries, rather than just a given name/middle name combo. The bishop actually has a compound surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction between a "double name" versus a "given name/middle name combo"? Isn't a middle name just another given name (after the first name)?—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A double name is a given name formed by two names, e.g. in either Pope John Paul, where John Paul is the given name. These are usually hyphenated. A middle name is a name that is given but is not a given name. People aren't typically referred to by it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in countries whose forms list "given names", where first name and middle name are expected to be listed. Some airlines' ticket systems do this too. —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life, especially not within the countries they are from. In any case the article's phrasing of John Taylor as a double name is incorrect. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life ...: If that is indeed the case (no opinion), the respective page titles should be using parenthetical disambiguation with a more common name, and not attempting natural disambiguation with a supposed uncommon "John Taylor" in their page title. Per WP:NATDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. —Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I'm not sure how many are commonly referred to with the "Taylor" included, but they would likely either be referred to by their full name or first and last name. It would be rather unusual for them to be known by just their first and middle name. I'd assume there's a reason why such indexes aren't typically created on Wikipedia. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there's similar pages at Category:Compound given names.—Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are hyphenated French names. Some are unhyphenated French names, and some of those are highly suspect. E.g. Alphonse Joseph has two entries. Alphonse Joseph Georges has an article in the French wikipedia as Alphonse Georges, and a New York Times article about him also calls him Alphonse Georges. Alphonse Joseph Glorieux has a French wikipedia article titled Alphonse Glorieux, an Idaho Statesman article names him the same way (the bishop was assigned to Idaho), and his own English article explicitly says "Alphones Glorieux was born on ...", so I am going to nominate that (and probably others like it) for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: I've also found several English examples (Friedrich Gottfried, Julie Marie, Rupert Charles) created by the banned User:Neelix, which I have also nominated for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proven that any of these are compound names. We don't index by random given/middle name combinations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of this post seems to have a strange desire to remove all links to the name 'John Taylor' from Wikipedia and has been editing out hatnotes denoting this from numerous articles to push this point of view. Given there are over 200 individuals named John Taylor on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor), this would make for a nonsensical decision, because this act is removing a useful search function. Author of this post has also has a history of edits being repeatedly reverted after deleting segments from numerous articles for seemingly no rationale other than styling Wikipedia to suit their personal preference and then nominating the articles for deletion when his / her edit wars don't get approved. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my rationale, not a "personal preference": WP:NAMB applies. There is no rational purpose for a hatnote to John Taylor in John "Pondoro" Taylor's article, for example. If a reader ends up in the latter article, they're not looking for some other person. FYI, I have finished removing those hatnotes; in a few cases, I replaced them with more sensible ones. The one in John Henry Taylor now points to another John Henry Taylor. Jack Taylor (1890s pitcher)'s hatnote points to Jack Taylor (1900s pitcher), and vice versa. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're so passionate about deleting things you dislike unless it's a spectrum issue. Yet given you've announced on my talk page that you're going to delete names, despite no consensus being agreed to on doing so, it seems you've set your mind to acting on whatever you please without considering the use of Wikipedia (especially for those new to the platform) towards anyone but yourself. Many would suggest you abide by the rules of considering the input of community discussions before engaging in mass deletions which will rightfully be reverted. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are verging on Wikipedia:No personal attacks with a non-existent "spectrum issue". An editing guideline, not my dislikes, drives my edits. And I'm not deleting names as you falsely claim, merely useless hatnotes. Also, you've been reverted by both me and an IP for your insistence on keeping a hatnote to John Taylor in John Taylor Gatto, which makes no sense. Finally, contrary to your inaccurate insinuation, I have created dozens of name lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with whatever the community decides. However, I suspect the IP is a sockpuppet of yours. MrEarlGray (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that is a personal attack. Desist, or I will report you. (Or request a sockpuppet investigation, so I can sneer at your baseless insinuation.) I don't need to hide behind sockpuppets. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How many of these people were known as "John Taylor" vs. those were their first and middle names? I don't think this dab page is necessary beyond the ones we already have. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of this discussion was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is a list of prefix matches which aren't included on John Taylor. It's not a useful grouping, because it is unclear that "John Taylor" is a double name for any of these people. A link to Special:PrefixIndex/John Taylor on the John Taylor DAB page would be sufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Taylor? So obvious, I guess everyone else has a good reason for not suggesting it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor is not a given name. That would be the only justification for adding the entries to a dab page. Otherwise, WP:PTM would apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm reluctant to close this when few participants have provided policy-based reasons for Keeping or Deleting this article. This shouldn't come down to a personal preference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: This is not a matter of personal preferences, as MrEarlGray claims, but rather there is not a shred of evidence that "John Taylor" is a real given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no policy-based rationale offered for deletion, and there is a plain one for keep. Per WP:DAB, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." And all 14ish people linked on this page have a WP:COMMONNAME that starts "John Taylor". Regardless of whether "John Taylor" was intended to be a double-barreled name like "Mary-Kate" or some such, people searching for on the commonly names of these individuals will experience easier navigation with this page (and it actually helps navigation since it breaks them out from the firstname/lastname John Taylors on the other dab page). (P.S. I removed the bishop with the double-barreled last name who was incorrectly added to this dab page.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal. No policy-based rationale? The article explicitly claims it is a double name, plus it's right there in the article's title. Where's the evidence that this is another Billy Joe? We don't create lists for any two random names. The search function is quite adequate for that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liz: IMO you're missing the point. This is not a given name, so why should a lying article be spared? Something like "Billy-Joe" shows up in name websites,[41][42] as does "Betty Jane",[43][44] but nothing, zilch, nada for "John Taylor" as a given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VanGrunsven RV-2

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[45] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)[edit]

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [46]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([47]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure of any notability here. Vorann Gencov (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: didn't find coverage either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palo-Alto

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. Also, it is similar to both the problematic cases of Milagrosa and Paciano Rizal: it only serves as a directory: a breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing about this besides a google map location and this Wikipedia article, not notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these utterly impossible Philippines articles. It had 195 people living there in the 1903 census. Lots of historical results in English including mentions in parliament and legal matters, and the establishment of a co-operative in 1991, but can only find real estate listings. I haven't searched in local newspapers, though, but I'm making the assumption this needs to pass GNG and not GEOLAND, and I can't quite get there yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palo Alto (disambiguation). Palo Alto, Calamba already redirects to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays and I'll add an entry for it at Palo Alto (disambiguation). There are insufficient reliable sources to say the hyphenated version of this name should only refer to this barangay, and some evidence ([48], [49]) that this barangay is also known as "Palo Alto" without the hyphen. Either way, there's no evidence of standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the best solution. —seav (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to this. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palo Alto (disambiguation) per Dclemens1971's suggestion. HueMan1 (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palo Alto (disambiguation) per Dclemens1971 and WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paciano Rizal, Calamba

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article, with a one but non-independent citation (Calamba city government). The article primarily serves as a directory, with listings of their establishments, government offices, and industrial sites. A breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being legally recognisable isn't enough. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to search for because it was named for Paciano Rizal. There's definitely some scholarly hits talking about schools, but would need to search a local paper in order to be sure. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ashmalee

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

This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians for the Maldives. Generally, ministers (and subordinates) there are not presumed notable. Otherwise, independent sources lack in-depth coverage on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cabinet ministers are generally presumed notable via WP:NPOL as national officeholder; is this ministerial position a cabinet position or is it a civil service one? Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to be civil service (appointed bureaucrat, no mention of cabinet or the like). A presumption of notability does not apply here per the subnational politicians country listing for the Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayapa

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Another barangay article with questionable sources and scope. Much of the content is too focused on its camp (Camp Vicente Lim), and majority of the sources do not back the notability of the barangay, but instead support the notability of the camp. There is no inheritance of the camp's notability to the barangay. The two other sources are questionable: non-independent source from the city government, and mere statistical listing from the Philippine Statistics Authority.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makiling, Calamba

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article since the article was created in 2014. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. There is no inheritance of notability of Mount Makiling to this obscure barangay article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Olaso

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

Footballer whose article has no footnotes, and whose only references are external links to database entries, and so does not meet general notability or sports notability in its current state. The article says that he played for the Spanish national team, which is probably true but unverified, and there isn't a football notability guideline that says that this is notability or presumed notability. The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide significant coverage within seven days.

Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the poorly sourced footballer articles around, why pick a player for AfD who played for two of the biggest clubs in Spain and made four international appearances for Spain? 🤔 What did your "search for additional sources" per WP:BEFORE yield? A quick web search found me [50] and [51] though for a player of this era most coverage is more likely to be found offline. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable figure, shown by sources above and COMMONSENSE which would say that offline sources exist. Giant Snowman 08:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a player of Real Madrid easily passes WP:FOOTYN. The article needs to be improved. I found a couple of online sources, I think there are others, not to mention offline. [52][53]. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Player notability" part of WP:FOOTYN has been deprecated. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. thanks Tau Corvi (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [54], [55], lets throw a few more sources into this bout! Really Robert, this was not a good candidate for AfD. The article certainly needs an improvement, but the negation of sources in the article isn't a reason for deletion. Govvy (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton High School

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

The article on Simon Kenton High School does not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a directory or database for every school that exists. 1keyhole (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are numerous detailed sources available for this school see this. I find it extremely hard to believe that any WP:BEFORE could have possibly been done. Nominator should withdraw this. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant[edit]

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

Unless this is the sewage plant that made the Ninja Turtle, I can see no reason for there to be a stub article for a wastewater treatment plant. I've done a bit of news search and there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular or of note regarding this plant, other than it opened on the birthday of a city/government official. It may have been the largest STP in Asia at one point. Still, I can only find 2 articles that mention that, one in 2014 (and even that article is mostly hidden behind a paywall) and one saying that a scheduled STP in Delhi would surpass it in all areas. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

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

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams. That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn, you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jweiss11, that works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899, as it is unlikely to see enough sourcing for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no 'merging' to be done as all relevant content is already included at the target. Simply redirect it to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie - I've previously taken the same position, but I think that may be wrong. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) merging preserves the edit history of both articles. If that is correct, the merge maintains the attribution history on the original work. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge or redirect. Favoring merge if that preserves the attribution history. Otherwise redirect for the reasons outlined by BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an admin could perform a WP:HISTMERGE here if that's deemed necessary. But there's never been a whole a lot of substance in this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the case of 1884 Wabash football team merging to Wabash football, 1884–1889, no history merge was performed. Same for 1884 DePauw football team merging to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

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

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the last AfD so we can compare? Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD came when the article was titled at Denial of the 7 October attacks, and thus is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, I remember that one... Yes, I'm not keen on wading into that again either. Oaktree b (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)
Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g 🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete second JPxG's arguments. I'd suggest a merge, but there's really not much to salvage. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPxG. As anticipated at the previous deletion discussion five months ago, it has proven impossible to find a source-based coherent scope here. The content is an unnecessary fork from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject.Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable subject, but poorly covered in the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources establishing notability (I'm not double checking reliability though, so this list may include some articles that don't qualify to establish notability. I'm including ADL because I'm not sure what that RfC meant for establishment of notability.):
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-792968
https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/byctjmo1r
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denial-and-distortion-hamas-led-october-7-attack-overview-false-narratives
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-07-07/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-chutzpah-of-the-october-7-deniers/00000190-89b4-d8b2-a3b6-fdff369a0000
https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-denial-and-disinformation-facing-october-7-survivors-20240630-p5jpy2.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/21/hamas-attack-october-7-conspiracy-israel/
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denialism-wake-oct-7-massacre
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-794596
https://www.newsweek.com/holocaust-remembrance-means-rooting-out-oct-7-denial-opinion-1864346
https://forward.com/opinion/574713/holocaust-denial-belief-oct-7-hamas-israel/
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-785628
https://www.irishtimes.com/history/2023/11/10/too-many-people-are-in-denial-about-events-of-october-7th-says-israeli-ambassador/
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/04/the-effort-to-document-the-events-of-oct-7-for-posterity-and-against-the-deniers/
https://www.nysun.com/article/as-october-7-deniers-emerge-we-could-use-a-man-like-dwight-eisenhower-again ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- just a quick reply (this is not intended as a counterargument, I have not reviewed all of these sources) – just wanted to inform you that the ADL cannot be used as a source on these subjects since I noticed at least a couple of those links are to the ADL website. See WP:ADLPIA. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I took a closer look at all of the sources here, and I can't say I'm impressed.
  - To start, we must note that nearly all of these are opinion pieces and should be handled appropriately per WP:RSOPINION. Such sources can be used with attribution as statements of opinion, but cannot be used for statements asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice. That already raises some significant issues. If we're going to make an article with a title like "Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", it might be nice to have something other than op-eds. Furthermore, some of these sources are unreliable or questionably reliable, most of them would be considered biased on the relevant subject, and some of them aren't even about the topic at all, they only happen to contain some keywords that make it sound like they'd be related.

I'll go through them all in order:

The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.

TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.

A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.

I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:

Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
Tagesspiegel
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Il Foglio
Libération: [56] & [57]
The New Statesman
The Australian
Le Figaro
Il Giornale
La Repubblica
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
American Jewish Comittee
Jewish Insider
ynet news
i24 News
The Guardian
Jewish News Syndicate
The New York Times
The Atlantic
MSNBC
Die Welt
Star Tribune

-StellarHalo (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it probably is independently notable, but there is some discussion of denialism on the misinformation article, so it is a suitable target. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine for me also. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baanty

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

Yet another musician, creative director, or music executive who critically fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NMUSICIAN. Another article written in a way that, if not carefully looked at, will look like it clearly passes any notability guideline, whereas it critically doesn't pass any. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Geezy, looking at the sources, they are either PRs/advertorials for music releases or lacking in WP:SIGCOV, they are also mostly unreliable pieces (without a proper byline). The source cited for the claim that they won an award Nigerian Books of Record in 2021, here utterly fails verification because there was no mention of Baanty, Ikpon Kelvin or even "Creative Director" which they won. It is also pretty dubious since the article says they've been active since 2022, so how come winning an award from the prestigious NBR? The other award and nominations isn't/aren't significant enough to make the subject presumptively notable under any criteria. Overall, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NMUSICIAN. The sources cited in the article are PR pieces. It lacks independent coverage and fails to establish notability. Further, the timeline and awards are inconsistent, further undermining the article's credibility and notability.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV, most of it promotional. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE or even WP:NMUSICIAN. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]