Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      July 13 (Sat)      July 12 (Fri)      July 11 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Id Tech 2 (disambiguation)

Id Tech 2 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. "Id Tech 2" should just redirect to the topic at Id_Tech#id_Tech_2, and so this dab is not needed anymore. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: Id Tech 2 already redirects to Id Tech#id Tech 2, which is all we need. PamD 07:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Id Tech#id Tech 2 already handles this topic, as stated by PamD. The article doesn't disambiguate much, it just lists the game engines using said software, plus there's only 3, and one of them is a game. I'd say this belongs in a list article, but there's not much to list. MK at your service. 09:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG from lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 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. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 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!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, an example of WP:Ignore all rules. The page already has a couple of sources, and one does not expect extensive coverage in newspapers etc. Assuming that this list is correct, it has a relevant encyclopedic role so should be left. I note that there appear to be several other security related pages nominated for AfD by the same editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this is encyclopedically relevant. I looked around for another article it could be housed at instead, to see if there was a good merge argument, but we don't appear to have any central "watch center", "national security watch center" or similar article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 12 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!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Operations Center

National Security Operations Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to National Security Agency. Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 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. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 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!} 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article on the NSA says As of 2013, NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known. It looks like the correct place for this information would be Directorates of the National Security Agency. But that doesn't exist. We could redirect it per nom, but that would mean losing the information we have in this article. We could merge it there instead of simply redirecting, but the NSA article is already a large and difficult to navigate article - over 1000kb, 80kb of prose. Unless someone is prepared to do a lot of work here, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to step up in the AfD timeframe, I think it's best to leave this where it is. Call this a "!vote for no consensus", I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 02:20, 12 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!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstfruits

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

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

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 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!} 23:11, 5 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!} 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FASCIA (database)

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

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

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion, but here is a source from 2016. jp×g🗯️ 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 17:19, 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!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KIV-7

KIV-7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete or merge into NSA encryption systems. Fails coverage in secondary WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Technology. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 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!} 23:16, 5 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!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda Network Exord

Al Qaeda Network Exord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 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 with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Covered in foreign media [3] and some journals [4], [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 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!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The journal articles are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and not WP:SIGCOV. The foreign media article cited is just reporting on the New York Times article already sourced. Longhornsg (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989)

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. It has no assertion of notability or references. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list is an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by years, including this one, exists only for navigation reasons. References can be added, easily but Afds are not for cleanup.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I incline towards delete, in agreement with Boleyn, but I won't vote for the moment. However, I have a question: what is the point restricting it to the 1980s? There were certainly famous films (such as The Robe) well before that. Athel cb (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect Duplicates List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(1935–1999)#1980s, as do List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1939), List of 20th Century Fox films (1970–1979), and List of 20th Century Fox films (1990–1999). If you're going to split the page, you have to finish the job. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G-Worldwide Entertainment

G-Worldwide Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Business, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reshat Ramadani

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

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

No WP:SIGCOV; fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Macedonia. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 12 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]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:

(1) The article's subject (i.e., three four two foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.

(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[6]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[7] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.

Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which will be all barely remembered in a year from now.

So, it'll be either a hard delete or a merge and redirect to an existing article about Orbán's government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, see also WP:RECENT. The topic is notable only as part of 2024 Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Fifth Orbán Government, and / or similar. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an international diplomatic conflict that has already generated so many sources and comments is always notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a polite observation that this is not an article about a diplomatic conflict, whatever that may mean. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please save this cynical comment for others. It's just a polite note. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There's not a general subarticle for his prime ministership, but shouldn't his actions during this term be at Fifth Orbán Government? Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow loan

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

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

I am just not seeing any basis for notability for a one-time loan of just over (in Dr. Evil-speak) one million dollars. I can imagine this being merged somewhere as a line, but an article seems unsupportable. BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Finance. BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party, where the topic is already discussed. Per nom, there is not enough here to justify its on article. Yilloslime (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party#Dissolution of the PZPR in the event that someone wants to do a full treatment of this topic. This article has been here since 2007 and it looks like it's been a stub the whole time. Some Wikieditors have taken an interest in de-orphaning etc. but no one has done the legwork of getting enough sources to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Polish Wikipedia has a longer article. No BEFORE was done by the nom; mine show this topic is discussed in some Polish sources, try the following Google Books query: "Moskiewska pożyczka" 1990. There are even English-language hits - see query "Moscow loan" 1990. This book in English for example mentions it as a "well known example" of something. It seems to be a notable topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much BEFORE is necessary to know that a million dollar loan is not by itself notable? The Polish Wikipedia article is longer because it contains an entirely unsourced section. BD2412 T 22:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just in case anyone wanted to offer any more specific references to establish notability. If not, this looks like a probable Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The coverage in Polish United Workers' Party is sufficient; and I'm not convinced this is a suitable phrase to redirect. I can't speak for Polish coverage, but this article is the best English coverage ... and the loan itself is tangential. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No real evidence of notability. The sources found in the previous AfD are all either dead and not archived or do not discuss the company in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, instead consisting of routine announcements of companies dontaing to them. While that's a noble goal it's not notability-establishing * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fiji. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All coverage is WP:MILL. Not really anything about the company itself aside from funding announcements and press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGTRIV. The article is also in pretty rough shape and while I don't like deleting stuff for this reason, there simply isn't enough coverage out there to write a better article beyond a short stub. C F A 💬 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a lot of coverage out there, most of it appearing to be press-release-based churnalism. But I think enough of it goes beyond WP:ORGTRIV, for example, these piece in the Fiji Times that involve reporting ([8], [9]), and this piece in FBC News ([10]). There is also some mildly critical coverage that for sure wouldn't be from a press release, see Fiji Times ([11]) and FBC News ([12]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclemens1971 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first set of articles consists almost entirely of quotes from the organization hence fails WP:ORGIND. The second set does not discuss the organization in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess we disagree about what constitutes sufficient depth. I think several paragraphs constituting the whole of a news story on a single organization counts; I would describe the two more critical stories in particular as delivering "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" per WP:CORPDEPTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the sources support the article well and particulary the sources that include some negative press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockycape (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 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!} 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources, 2-sentence stub. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [13] [14] [15] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 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!} 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not going to vote because I'm not familiar with how region designations work in Indonesia, but if this were to be deleted, shouldn't Kedaung Kali Angke, Cengkareng Barat and Cengkareng Timur also be deleted because they are unsourced stubs about administrative villages? C F A 💬 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Pax

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

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

Fails GNG and does not approach ENT. The sources provided are basically just awards noise that doesn’t count for anything and there was nothing for google news except some non-GNG counting tabloid fodder suggesting she was paid for sex by a disgraced executive. This was prodded years ago before our standards hardened but this isn’t at the current sourcing expectations Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Page Six and Daily Star articles, which aren't a RS, are all I can pull up. Lack of sourcing for this individual. The AVN and Xbiz articles are just lists of winners. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). Fine. But this actress, having received various awards that still have a page on this Wikipedia (so far, until the cancellation of PORNBIO is cancelled or extended further to the awards themselves, maybe), the page about the recipients might be redirected to the most notable they received. Here obviously, the AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress (mentioned in the lead section). So I !vote for a redirect to AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress#2015–2019, where she is obviously listed. If my !vote is commented with "Oh, but we can't really decide to redirect her article to that page, because she has received various other notable awards that also have a page", I won't reply (but I will smile :D).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until the article can be expanded, I wouldn't object to a redirect. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Im not fundamentally opposed to a redirect. , Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A won-an-award-but-independent-rs-coverage-is-nil porn bio. No claim of passing WP:BASIC and insufficient RS support for passing WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant

Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Keep I believe since people are still searching for this wedding and its festivities, let this page be there as a one stop for all the information. This wedding is still trending, and when it loses its charm (say October 2024) we can discuss its deletion. vishalkhopkar — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, this wedding is getting extensive media coverage. However, imv, the wedding does not qualify as a notable event and I see no lasting historical significance here so fails WP:NEVENT. All information can be adequately covered within articles about Anant Ambani. WP is not a newspaper so newsworthy doesn't equal notable. And just for information, both the groom and the bride aren't even notable on their own. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Well, neither person getting married is notable, so I'm not sure why getting married is notable. Could be a one liner in the groom's father's article, that's about all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of notable events where the individuals involved are not notable outside of their involvement in the specific event. Legoktm (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The contradiction in the nomination makes the case clear: this wedding is getting extensive media coverage, which makes it notable. Most weddings do not get massive media coverage, and on top of that even prominent Indian weddings don't get coverage in Western media. But this wedding has coverage in NYT, NBC, AP, USA Today, and plenty more. It's estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the wedding (CNN) - can you think of any other event that costs hundreds of millions of dollars that wouldn't merit an article?

Policy wise, let's run through the list at WP:NEVENT: Lasting effects: skip; Geographical scope: check, affects most of Indian society, which is wide enough; Depth of coverage: check, as demonstrated above and by cursory Google News searches; Duration of coverage: check, this has been discussed since the wedding festivities started last year; Diversity of sources: check, wide variety of international sources.

So, lasting effects. It's of course hard to tell whether an event today will have "enduring historical significance". The NYT describes the wedding as having "introduced the world to the [India]’s Gilded Age." CNN says, "Attendees dressed the part, streaming past photographers in custom sarees, lehengas and kurtas at an event that may set forthcoming trends in Indian wedding fashion." NBC quoted a wedding planner saying: "I don’t think any wedding in the world or anyone has spent this kind of money in terms of expenses, magnitude, events, entertainment, decor or design."

The best analogy is probably courtesy of The Guardian, which calls the Ambanis the "Windsors of India". Unsurprisingly, you'll find Windsor weddings' articles listed at List of royal weddings. Legoktm (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Vanity Fair: The Ambani Wedding Will Set “Trends for Decades to Come,” According to Fashion Insiders Legoktm (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily agree ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The wedding has received (and is continuing to receive) a wide range of coverage in global media from reliable sources, several of which are explicitly projecting long-term impact and effects. The delete votes so far misunderstand what makes an event (as separate from an individual) notable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, also Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. Youknow? (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All the more I have a great disdain for these type of media hype, I can't help but point out that this event passes GNG. Coverage started way before the wedding. The pre-wedding ceremonies received extensive coverage as well. And it is very likely that this event will be discussed for years to come in mainstream media, which we use as a barometer for notability. X (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is now expanded. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is covered by the reliable sources and references of major news networks from all over the world. Also the wedding is notable as many famous Celebrities around the world attend the event. 223.123.17.252 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton Astropulse (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark

Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Certainly the 'acting career' does not establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that most of the keep votes in the last nomination thought that being a member of a 'royal family' conferred notability. It does not. Neither does the fact that some publications pander to the vanities of these caterpillars on the commonwealth.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The latest acting role isn't even a named character, hardly notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Some of the Keep arguments in the previous AfD were erroneous. "he is currently 3rd in line to be Pretender to the Greek throne" fails to recognize that the Greek throne is defunct and has been for quite some time. Another argument was "even the divorced wives of the lowliest of Britain’s peers qualify for a page" which is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. Being on pages of Tatler and Harper's Bazaar doesn't mean he is notable or else we would have to make everyone who is ever mentioned in those pages a wikipedia as well. He also doesn't have a notable acting career. Unfriendnow (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Royalty and nobility, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The item that would establish notability would be his acting career. There are only three films which I could find him in (the ones listed on his article). In the first, as the article says, he only made "guest appearances". The second film was not notable in its own right. In the third film, he did not have a significant role. Thus the criteria of WP:ENT are not satisfied, and there is nothing else that would establish notability. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The nominator did not do a WP:BEFORE check especially step D before nominating this article for deletion. Also, any argument that attacks the viewpoints presented in reliable sources or expresses dislike of the article subject is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and has no weight meaning such an argument will be discarded due to having no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article subject has received significant coverage from: South China Morning Post, La Vanguardia, ABC, El Confidencial, Vanity Fair, Paris Match, El Español, El Economista, Diario de Sevilla, El Nacional (Catalonia), Gala, Harper's Bazaar, Tatler, ¡Hola!, Mujer Hoy, Revista Clase, news.com.au

--StellarHalo (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I find royalty egregious is irrelevant; I am not nominating a serving royal who has attracted coverage from any but the gossiperati for deletion. I do not think that you know what the word 'significant' means.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have an axe to grind against a group of people to the point where you hate reliable sources just for covering them mean you should not be editing articles in this topic. From WP:GNG, "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. All the rs I provided above address the article subject directly and in detail. Not only that, per WP:BASIC, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The only meaning of "significant" that is relevant here is the one used by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which you seem to refuse to engage with. Also, you clearly do not know what a gossip magazine is. StellarHalo (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Subject has received significant press coverage, regardless of why that coverage was written. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  significant? you are having a laugh.TheLongTone (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. StellarHalo provided an adequate display of such coverage in the above conversation. Your sarcasm doesn't do anything for your case, so I'm not sure why you chose to react in that manner. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: and I strongly suggest the nominator withdraw. Ignoring the "meet the Greek royals" and similar sources (because notability is not inherited), there are many, many in-depth articles about the subject by independent, reliable sources. StellarHalo lists quite a few and there are lots more. Easily meets WP:BASIC. C F A 💬 00:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This individual is truly insignificant and the fact that some empty-headed people pay him and similar people attention is neither here nor there. And as for withdrawing my nomination....forget it. The man is not notable in any real sense. As per the article, all he has done is be born. See WP:NOTINHERTED. I have a better claim to be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating. So you've been written about in Tatler, China Morning Post, Harper's Bazaar, Hola!, Vanity Fair, etc? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:27, 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!} 20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:GNG as per the articles cited in the article and the additional articles found by StellarHalo. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply if reliable sources have written about the individual, even if those reliable sources' interest is because of the article subject's family connections. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: For the reasons listed above. The candidacy appears to be supported only by the candidate's personal opinions and dislikes rather than a solid source-based argument. Sira Aspera (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie

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

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

WP:NOTDICT. This could also be disambiguated, if possible. 48JCL 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 48JCL 20:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Australians. Agree with NOTDICT. Orange sticker (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the term "Aussie" is frequently used and part of Australia culture. Bduke (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where Them Girls At (Megan Thee Stallion song)

Where Them Girls At (Megan Thee Stallion song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is an album track with no coverage outside of its parent album. A few low chart positions (the New Zealand one not even on the main chart of that country) is not enough to sustain an article. I am nominating this because my redirection of the article was reverted. This should be redirected to Megan (album) as it fails WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" and re: point 1, that charting only indicates that a topic may be notable, not that it is. Ss112 19:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album). I agree with the nominator's rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Outside of "Mamushi" and "Otaku Hot Girl", "Where Them Girls At" has been considered a future single (and has charted as such), and was more importantly recommended by her fans on X (formerly Twitter) as the landslide choice for the next music video. At bare minimum the page should remain as an album promotional single as it has received early airplay on several Urban radio stations. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Danderyd municipal election

2002 Danderyd municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. Only sources I find in media archives are articles collating all the election results in Stockholm County. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository for individual election statistics on municipal level. It is simply not encyclopedic material. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems very run-of-the-mill. Sources are all primary/government databases. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have fixed the issue. Please close this discussion. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated,please remove afd. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources has been added. Please close this discussion.Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have searched for sources and not found any. The current sources are not good enough. They are all primary, apart from possibly the teachers' journal, which I can't access. Leaning redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, but will wait to see if anyone else can find reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Attached more independent sources. They are not government directories or any primary sources.They ate independet sources,so I request you to close the deletion discussion page. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for adding two more sources. They are still not reliable sources, though. This is a request to tender for building works. It is a primary source. I'm not entirely sure what this is, as a pop-up ad I can't remove blocks part of the screen for me, but it looks like some sort of school listing, probably commercial. Do you know if the school has been covered in any off-line sources - books about the history of the area, memoirs of staff or people who attended? As Pppery said in the nomination, so far all we have are primary or commercial sources, nothing independent or reliable that shows notability. Can you access the teachers' journal - do you know what that says about the school? Typically, deletion discussions run for at least 7 days, so this is unlikely to be closed before then, so that other editors can comment. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to teachers' journal, but i can confirm, it's on page number 96, there is a teachers' information who was associated with the school. Arijit Kisku (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, as still lacking reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 5 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) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

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

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

I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.

In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and New Zealand. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Verhoeven

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

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

After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems to me that this actor/producer does not meet either the general notability guideline or notability guideline on entertainers. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Michael_Verhoeven#Biography: (father; mentioned there; or to Senta Berger#Personal life (mother; also mentioning him) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! @DanCherek, I actually found the information on the German Wikipedia page. If you believe the article [[Luca Verhoeven]] does not meet the guidelines set by WP:GNG, you can move or delete it accordingly. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A redirect doesn't really make sense to me, someone expecting an article on Senta Berga would type in Senta Berga - not her son's name. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conserveira do Sul

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nootdorp Panthers

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby league in the Netherlands where the Nootdorp Panthers are now mentioned. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or above Redirect Fails notability. Mn1548 (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby league in the Netherlands per GNG, ATD, and CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Geezy

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

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

This fails WP:NCREATIVE, and overall, WP:GNG based on WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. The award they won is not significant enough to help them pass, if they had 'won' their 'nomination's, that would be a different case, just merely being nominated at NEA isn't significant enough. The noms are unsourced while the piece the award they won is sourced to is an unreliable one from a marginally reliable publication (WP:NGRS). Taking a close look at the sources, they are mostly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and unreliable pieces and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I am skeptical about the notability of G-Worldwide Entertainment itself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: winning a non-notable award isn't notable, the rest of the sources are puffy entertainment/lifestyle sources, not really helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: nominated for a notable award twice in 2015 and 2017.--Afí-afeti (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yawa No Dey End

Yawa No Dey End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just like Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP), this critically fails WP:NSINGLE. No source to establish notability here, for the charts, I am very skeptical about this one, also, the song ranked in TurnTable charts or any of the mentioned charts only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. In this case, this song isn't notable. Again, I am skeptical about the notability of the musician himself, and overall, the user who created this article and so many others which I am skeptical about. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate • (chatter) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we need an article for Donald Trump's press conference where he talked about killing COVID with bleach and UV light? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's how the witch turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not really an argument that the topic needs to be covered in an article of its own, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge and redirect to 2024 Washington summit per MrSchimpf. Per nom. and others, case of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning merge to 2024 Washington summit. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (currently nominated for deletion but likely to be kept). This would be WP:UNDUE at 2024 Washington summit. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, it would be undue at the 2024 Washington summit, where it was held and what it was about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good reason to delete and rewrite it for a merge into 2024 Washington summit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons said above. Not notable enough. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar (2025 film)

Sikandar (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated per WP:TOOSOON. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; WP:CRYSTAL Promotional hype is not a source of wisdom for wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 16:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These searches may or may not be more helpful than those above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; Salman Khan's film aren't the usually cancelled or shelved, especially in past few years., And I disagree with WP:TOOSOON, as Brad Pitt starrer F1 (film) is set to release in June 2025, while Sikandar is confirmed to release in March 2025. I suggest review on this. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the review that you suggest. The news sources that I linked suggest that shooting has begun, passing the first part of WP:NFF, but I wont give a bolded opinion because I think that our standards for anything to do with the film world are too lax. I would say that same if I was commenting on the Brad Pitt film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the two articles, F1 has a much more developed production section, with significantly more information, more sources and more than enough to show the production itself is notable, meeting NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: This does not meet WP:NFF as there isn't enough to show the production itself is notable. A handful of standard publicity pieces and basic information doesn't meet that criteria. Move to draft until the production section is better developed with good sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Find some neutral and non-churny sources, please; the 'poster' image (which isn't even a poster) is also out because it was literally ripped off the film's Twitter account. We also can't concievably compare the production track of a large-scale Hollywood action film about auto racing to whatever this is (that we don't have a plot to, mind you). Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The F1 (film) comparison is useful in showing the kind of sourced information that we'd need to meet WP:NFF—details about the production history and distribution. Right now it's primarily announcements about development and pre-production since production only began recently. hinnk (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Fails WP:NFF as there isn't enough to show the production notablity. Charliehdb (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. This is another case of a movie article created way ahead and has not even reached post-production stage. Too early to have an article in namespace. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haliey Welch

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

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep: there are several internet celebrities and personalities with their own articles. Ben76266 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry confused you with User:BullDawg2021 Comintell (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I created the draft first Comintell (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that. I had no idea that you also created a draft. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey Welch to Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rdirect or merge: to Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Comintell and BullDawg2021: Both of you need to stop edit-warring on this article. jp×g🗯️ 06:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach Bryan or Shaquille O'Neal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - @Comintell:, come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. 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. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato—mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want a "like" button, @Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jenn Sterger's article is a biographical page discussing her successful careers in television, modeling, and writing. Where is the comparison?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Read the article.

  "Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""

  She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too soon; for now, likely fleeting WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and move to the incident rather then the person to comply with WP:BIO1E -1ctinus📝🗨 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or draftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Lowellian (reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.

Comintell (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This girl is essentially Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. Zinderboff(talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see USA Today, Rolling Stone & The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to Gorilla Glue Girl, Bhad Bhabie, and Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. "Looking for a Man in Finance" and Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are plenty of reliable sources and flash-in-the-pan memes get articles due to proper sourcing all the time, such as rizz or gyatt XanderK09 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @XanderK09: The problem here is that the article is about the person, not the meme. Since the person is only notable for the meme, she falls under WP:1E. C F A 💬 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Worst case scenario, move the article to Hawk Tuah and redirect Haliey Welch to it. But I think it's pretty clear that we're at the point where Welch herself is notable. See Tay Zonday / Chocolate Rain. 162 etc. (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel like this might be of some importance as we have articles on stuff like "your mom jokes" and stuff Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BLP1E lists three criteria, all of which are required for deletion. Please address the actual criteria rather than merely WP:VAGUEWAVE "per BLP1E".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a clear BLP1E situation. The coverage of the individual is because of the video, the person absolutely is still a low-profile individual (assuming she's going to successfully parlay this into wider fame is impossible to say at this point), and point three doesn't particularly apply to this (if it's about the meme, she would be a footnote in the article.) "Subsequent" developments like her finding representation or starting her own company are still in relation to being the "Hawk Tuah Girl". The best you could argue is the meme should have its own page, but this bio ain't it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think at this point there's clearly enough references and global news articles defining her as a notable person, and just based on the interviews she's done over the past week or so, she's clearly got plans to stay in the public eye. I would suggest a cleanup however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify the page until enough time has passed to assess whether sustained notability exists beyond the initial viral meme phase. The focus should be on documenting the Hawk Tuah meme rather than emphasizing Hailey Welch, unless she achieves broader recognition and is demonstrated to be notable through continued media coverage. Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep // Gargaj (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, the person is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event (a TikTok interview that went viral) is not significant. Zacwill (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP)

Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article in question is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC unless scrutinized closely. However, it notably fails to meet WP:NALBUM or any of the applicable subsections due to a lack of sources establishing its notability. The content primarily consists of music releases, alongside interviews and passing mentions, none of which sufficiently establish notability on any grounds.

For reference, you may review archived copies of links from The PGM Club and The Guardian Nigeria here:

• [20]
• [21]

These archives provide accessible evidence regarding the sources mentioned. I am also very much skeptical about the notability of the musician himself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community Based Approaches to Sustainable Land Use in Rwanda

Community Based Approaches to Sustainable Land Use in Rwanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article about a specific topic, and reads like it is building a case to demonstrate the importance of a particular approach. A more encyclopedic way to go at it would be to write an article about the general topic itself (Land use in Rwanda) reflecting how it is treated in the sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Rwanda. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Chaotic Enby, Thank you so much for your swift feedback, I really appreciate your feedback. Honestly, I want to learn more, I love research and writing, but I need guidance. Marking my article for deletion is not discouraging me, I need to be mentored because I feel like I am yet to develop confidence in contributing to Wikipedia, but I would love to keep making contributions, and I know I need time to learn

I will conduct research to better understand the differences between essays and encyclopedia articles. I would love to be guided properly to fixing the article instead of deleting it, as I will learn and then modify it to get it right.

I am open to learning and to make contributions

KingVik Planet (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Re Moriori (app)

Ta Re Moriori (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:N. Ref 1 and 2 are dead (WP:404) and it appears to be taken off the Play Store. Ref 3 reads like an ad ver tize muhnt. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scoop (website) publishes press releases and has pretty much no standards. They're absolutely useless for notability and should only be used where primary sources are appropriate. The name doesn't help but there does appear to be no independent coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Moriori language; the app on its own seems unlikely to become noteworthy. —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor coverage about its release but no coverage about its usage or impact. Does not meet WP:N. Adabow (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Garg

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

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

This individual lacks notability on his own. His entire article centers around his associations with Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar, rather than highlighting any significant achievements or contributions he has made independently. Also, the references are about Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar. Fails WP:ARTIST. Charlie (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Entertainment, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Hansius

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

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

A non-notable YouTuber. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Looks like a vanity page to me. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 12:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Sweden. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't been able to take a closer look at them yet but I found some sources that potentially could be significant: [22] [23] [24] [25] AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I've incorporated additional sources and now believe the article subject meets the notability criteria. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have looked into the page and added some further touches, and I also believe that the article subject meets the notability criteria at this point in time. I vote for declining and removing the deletion request. ~User:Roi.Frvr 14:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Van

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

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

No notable independent wrestler. She worked on small independent promotions. She had a few matches with big promotions, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the sources are just WP:RESULTS with no in-deep coverage of the wrestler HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just not enough in RS to keep the article; this is all I can find [26], rest are match reports. Tried using a search listed under Wiki Wrestling [27], none turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay: Viva Van currently works for Ring of Honor & AEW so that should be enough notability for her page to stay, it could also be in the hopes of her someday capturing a ROH TV Women's title or a AEW Women's or AEW TBS title or even a New Japan Women's or New Japan Strong Women's title or Wonder Ring Stardom Women's title while still in the indy's if given enough time or she could even soon or someday sign with WWE, so I think that that should be enough for her page should stay around. Because she also is still a very active indy wrestler today. (She also was trained by Rikishi and probably is apart of the Samoan / Polynesian Heritage / Bloodline. Which could do good if she we're to someday join WWE as well. She was also apart of the ROH TV Women's title tournament, so that should also be enough notability for her page to stay.) 71.65.161.223 (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even that, most of the article are just WP:RESULTS, with no focus on her. Most of the article looks like wants to present the wrestler as notable by comparation. "made her debut for Thunder Rosa's Mission Pro Wrestling in May 2021 in a Triple Threat match against Impact Wrestler Masha Slamovich ", "Van was defeated by CMLL Veteran Estrellita." "June 2019, Viva teamed up with WWE wrestler MVP", like namedropping. Also, Reddit is not a valid source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But she has returned to take on Willow Nightingale & Lluvia for the CMLL World Women's Championship it was announced today and she also tried out for WWE in 2020 & in 2022. Hopefully with those two things now added to her page could change something or could make her page stay. 71.65.161.223 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not seeing enough independent and significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The vast majority of the sources are match results, blogs, interviews, or are non-RS. Working for a certain promotion does not grant inherent notability. Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]