< July 05	July 07 >

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

The result was merge‎ to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobley missile strike[edit]

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

Redirect to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present). One of hundreds of airstrikes conducted in Somalia. Fails WP:GNG to stand on its own. Sourcing is routine news coverage and not WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Somalia, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is the only Tommahawk missile strike to have occurred during the Somali civil war, it therefore is clearly notable enough to stand on its own.XavierGreen (talk) 19:08, 30 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!} 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to American military intervention in Somalia (2007–present): per nom. Coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED and no evidence of a WP:LASTING impact. An (unfortunately) WP:RUNOFTHEMILL airstrike; content can be merged into the timeline article. It's more likely to actually be read there than in a separate article anyways. C F A 💬 02:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CFA. The argument for the only instance of something happening is, while an indication of importance, not an argument of notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirect. The content strikes me as sourced and suitable for inclusion, though whether as its own article or a subsection of another seems to make little difference. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are only three sources, barely enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, it really does not make sense without context. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ederies Arendse[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 30 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!} 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The link you gave is dead and my attempt at saving it broke the Wayback Machine. TheWikiToby (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG. C F A 💬 02:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Owor[edit]

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

BLP of the chair of a rotary club who is also a successful HR professional. I don’t see anything here to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uganda. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be retained because of the following reasons;

Asking ourselves questions

If we were to determine notability using the criteria that you have followed then we would be asking our selves;

Is Denis Toussaint Lesage is also notable or not? He was a successful deputy of his time
What is so special about that president of a certain country as there has been more presidents before him that have done great things?
What makes that CEO notable as their are people who have done what he has done.As in he founded a company but their are big companies than what he founded, etc
Does one being a member of a certain club, association or secret organisation make that person notable?

But according to the;

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria, He was covered by New Vision and also Daily Monitor which are national newspapers.
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria: Particularly the Any biography, he won the "The Business transformation leader" Award at the HR Reveal Awards 2021, if it was an easy to win award, then all Human Resource Managers would be having it, and Would Milton Owor not be included in the Biographical dictionary of Uganda?
I also believe that this article followed the WP:BLP that is particularly; Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR) and also the WP:BLPSTYLE

He is not just a HR professional at the NSSF Uganda, not everyone can be in that position. But he also won a top HR award in Uganda for his profession. B722N (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s true that New Vision and Daily Monitor mention him, but neither piece is in depth coverage of him and does not contribute in any way to demonstrating notability. Everything else we have for sourcing us either from organisations associated with the subject, or a non-notable award. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the biggest challenges faced by African Wikipedians is getting in-depth references that talk about people they are writing about. Most of the content in the newspapers and books is just a paragraph or a sentence. Very few Ugandans have books written about them or entire newspaper pages dedicated to them.

I request that you check most of the Ugandan Wikipedia articles and check whether their references have entire pages dedicated to the people that have been written about. Most of that information comes from their personal or company websites which are mostly not written with Neutral Point of View. And then the information from those websites is backed up with those paragraphs and sentences that have been found the notable media sites and publications.

Even most of newspaper articles about the profile of a person is usually tagged as sponsored content and you know that as long as an article drives sales or generates clicks or they have been paid then they will have to publish it. And how many international media houses are going to write about the profiles of Ugandan people in depth from childhood to education to their careers. They will just write a paragraph about the career and working experience.

And for the awards, what makes the award notable?

Should we be only considering the Grammy Awards or the BET Awards as the notable awards and not the top Ugandan Awards that awards their Ugandan musicians.

Or we should only be considering the Komla Dumor Award as the only notable award for journalists and not the awards that are given by the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA) because they are not recognized anywhere apart from Uganda.

I understand that we are doing the deletions to improve the quality of content on Wikipedia and that not everybody deserves to have a Wikipedia article since it is not an advertising platform.

And also you are not tagging these articles in bad faith but it is for the greater good. But how are we going to increase the African content on Wikipedia yet the articles written with the fewer references that are harder to get are also being deleted. If the article did follow guidelines such as WP:NPOV or the Wikipedia:Notability (people) or the tone was harsh.

I suggest that this article should be retained.

And also instead of deleting the published articles, they should be moved back to the draft space where someone can wait for 6 months before even getting a reference that writes about that person in depth. But at-least it gives the editors another chance to look deeper for the reference to find the new references that have written.

These kinds of deletions demotivate new editors, they will end up losing interest in contributing to the different projects of the Wikimedia Foundation especially if they tried to follow the guidelines for writing the articles about different topics. B722N (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people are one of the most challenging types of article. A lot get deleted because we have a very high threshold for notability where they're concerned. I’ve no doubt there are many articles to be written on Uganda-related topics, using ordinary newspapers and other sources, where they won’t be challenged - that’s why newer users are often advised to avoid BLPs to start with. I’ve no objection to this article being draftified if there are in fact better sources that will clearly demonstrate notability. But draftification is pointless unless those sources probably exist. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time @Mccapra and enlightening me. All of your points have been noted. B722N (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Economics. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a WP:REFBOMB but not a single one provides WP:SIGCOV of the subject. All available sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (corporate bio pages, self-authored material) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS with a name-check or perhaps a photo caption. He seems like a terrific civic-minded local leader but there is no evidence the subject passes the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. (As for the latter, an editor up-thread appears to say that Owor is listed in the Ugandan biographical dictionary, but there is no cite to that in the article and I cannot find that such a reference exists at all, much less that Owor is in it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: HR professional and president of a rotary club with no indication of notability. Opened every single source cited in the article hoping to find reliable ones but turned out that no single one is reliable to support notability. From sources number one to ten in the article all except one are primary sources and a further look at all sources proved same. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC Ednabrenze (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Friendly's[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no secondary sources. This article has no sources that suggest notability, but only references to the subject's own website/blog. If we compare the name of the account that created the article, Cathalmoylan, with the name of one of the founders of the business, Cathal Moylan (mentioned in the article), it becomes obvious that there is a WP:COI. Even so, the article is not written in a promotional way, so it can't be speedied per G11. However, it's clearly not a notable business. Bishonen | tålk 22:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. It's non-notable with zero secondary sources out there. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Can't find any secondary sources, I can only find the website. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am unable to find any non-primary coverage of this small business at all, making it a failure of WP:NCORP. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems like a small business and there aren't any independent sources to show it's widely known or important. Also, the references all seem to be from the business itself, which raises concerns about potential bias. Waqar💬 18:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This should have been a candidate of WP:CSD A7 instead of bringing it here to waste time commenting in this AFD thread. All three sources are from blogs and the business' website. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked the page for CSD A7 per WP:AVALANCHE. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hacktivity[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this conference. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, and I don’t think the external links could be used for sources. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granita (restaurant)[edit]

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

WP:MILL defunct restaurant whose claim for inclusion is a WP:1E situation: the restaurant was known only for being the site of the Blair–Brown deal, an event in British political history which has nothing to do with the restaurant as such. Nothing else about the restaurant is in any way remarkable or notable. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and United Kingdom. Sandstein 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Simply because a notable meeting took place at this restaurant does not make it notable in and of itself.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blimus[edit]

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

Article is quite old, band seems to be long-since defunct. No real evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. No hits, no awards, no label, etc. None of the links are archived on archive.org, two are just listings on the programme for a festival. The BBC interview is the most promising but an interview alone wouldn't support an article, and looking at the URL it seems like it was actually a promotional listing for that same festival, rather than a journalistic interview. Googling around it seems to mostly be Wikipedia mirrors at this point. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some media coverage from 2010 and apparently they were active as late as 2011, but mostly it's just Wikipedia mirrors. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK to delete. That 2010 interview on Surrey Live consists mostly of deliberately nonsensical quotes by band member Graham Hill. Attention-getting, yes. Notable in the Wikipedia sense, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found for this band, only two hits on the word in Gnews, one of which is in German, both are unrelated. Article now is thread-bare with minimal sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw. Most of the Keep views focused on the amount of news coverage the topic received, and its political importance. Both are valid factors when determining journalistic importance, but not in establishing encyclopedic notability. Claiming notability comes from this being an unprecedented event is also not supported by our P&G.

Some participants called for waiting until November before we decide. Such an a posteriori determination of notability goes against our guidelines, as some here correctly noted. In the event that this topic gains notability in the future, nothing stops us from restoring the article from under the redirect. Discarding the !votes not based on P&G, we're left with a rough consensus to redirect.

There was a separate consensus since the AfD was opened to move the Calls for Biden to step aside section in both 2024 United States presidential election and 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries to Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign, so I picked the latter as the target most likely to reflect the intention of the Redirect views. That shouldn't prevent any editor from selectively merging content to the two other articles (or to List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign), or if consensus exists, changing the target of this redirect. Owen× ☎ 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign[edit]

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

This is not a notable topic. This is an extended news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. It's also too likely to devolve into a WP:POVFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if Biden does eventually drop out, what use would the article be..? Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard disagree. When was the last time we heard of an incumbent president being asked by members of his own party to relinquish the office? This is an important development not only for this election cycle, but for U.S. presidential history, holistically speaking. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not all trivia is notable. Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, by itself, isn't an encyclopedic topic. It's just one development in the 2024 United States presidential election. Presenting the material outside of a context like that is POVFORK-ish. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Wait Currently, it is a really notable topic spiraling right now, once things drop, then discussion can be made on deleting this page. InterDoesWiki (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. It's either notable or it's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notablity is not static. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects that are not notable can become notable, but things that are notable cannot become not notable. And This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, since you want an answer, I'll say ● Keep: This is a very notable topic. InterDoesWiki (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but I think that's where the problem lies. This topic obviously deserves some coverage on Wikipedia. The problem is that there is no clear answer of where. I think a discussion needs to be had. Seems like 2024 United States presidential debates or Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign would make the most sense. But 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2024 United States presidential election or 2024 Democratic National Convention could also work too. The fractured coverage doesn't benefit our readers. (I was just going to redirect this boldly, but never got around to it.) Esolo5002 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Keep. Four days later and this story has not slowed down at all. This is getting notable international coverage as well [1], [2], [3]. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a problem. I'm voting to keep, partly because the information covered here is notable and not covered anywhere else and can't really be covered in the required detail anywhere else. Could a page be made for the first debate itself? MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy blank and redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, which already contains all that needs to be discussed on this topic. Wikipedia is not a source of breaking news and is poorly suited to be, because we're an encyclopedia, not a news blog. If history shows that this was so significant an aspect of this year's election that it needs to be discussed in a separate article, we can write that article at that time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR as suggested in the comment above this one is the best possible outcome. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside: per WP:NOTNEWS. This does not need its own article; it is best-suited as a section in the main election article. I don't think anything needs to be merged because, as said above, the main article already covers it well enough. C F A 💬 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. The page on the 2024 United States presidential election can amply cover this debate re: Presdient Biden. TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per CFA comment. There is coverage but can be included in other articles.FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside per the above. --MuZemike 13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fait accompli, but I'd like to register my vote as keep anyway before it's deleted. It is very notable that 119 days before a US presidential election, many of the party are outright calling for an incumbent president to relinquish the nomination. To be honest, you could probably create a whole article for the first debate (where there normally isn't articles for individual debates) due to the notability of it and the polticial firestorm it has caused, much more than I would say any other televised presidential debate in US history. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Biden becomes the nominee, and wins re-election, would you still argue that calls for him to step aside were “notable” enough for an entire separate article? Or what if Biden does step down; wouldn’t it be weird to have an article about “calls for Biden to step down”, rather than a more broad article about him suspending his campaign altogether? A “notable” political firestorm in July, may not be notable at all in November. Prcc27 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he doesn't get replaced and goes on to the general, I'd argue it still is notable that so close to the election, after all primaries are done, that so many of the candidate's same party are calling for him to step down, has this ever happened before? If he does step down, this article is simply renamed to "Suspension of Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign". MarkiPoli (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MarkiPoli Fodient (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't remember the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape coming out in October 2016? Thank you for the demonstration of recency bias that underpins WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR - Likewise agree with @Ivanvector. W9793 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on the 2024 American presidential election, which has a section on this topic. I have only skimmed the article in its current form, but it feels like using Wikipedia to influence outside events to me. Can we WP:SNOWPRO this one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside per WP:NOTNEWS, in agreement with rationale put forth by several others above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe sheer number of reliable sources talking about it indicate that it is notable. It is more than just a single news cycle considering it has been a week and a half from the debate and it is still so prominently talked about. If it were just an extended news cycle, the publications about it would be diminishing, not growing. JMM12345 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article, "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign", already says "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." So, a split into sub-articles is suggested to be necessary. And, this is definitely a sub-article of the article "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign". GoldWitness (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested, but the current WP:CONSENSUS at that article’s talk page seems to be against splitting the article up. Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is substantially the same. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LASTING Influential members of the president's party calling for him to step down after he has secured delegates is unprecedented, and will be discussed for decades, even if he doesn't step down. Tons of reliable sources. The article is too large to be part of another article.Fodient (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are people still talking about Calls for Donald Trump to suspend his 2016 United States presidential campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out to the extent that it needs its own article? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump wasn't the incumbent president with nearly 99% of the delegates to acquire his party's nomination.Fodient (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with the fact that calls for Donald Trump to drop out in 2016 are contained at Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape#Calls to drop campaign and the Trump 2016 article not a separate article? Much like calls for Biden to drop out should remain on the 2024 debate and Biden 2024 pages? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone should make the article. Just because an article doesn't exist for something that's kinda similar is not an argument that another article should not exist.Fodient (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 2016 articles show well how to handle a situation like this once we're past the burst of WP:RECENTISM that we are stuck right in the middle of in 2024. If Biden stays in, this will fade. If he doesn't, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Biden stays in or steps down this will remain notable and discussed for decades.Fodient (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think, due to recency bias, but calls for Trump to drop out in 2016 have failed the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No recency bias here. A sitting president being called upon by prominent members of his own party as well as notable previous supporters, plus a senator, who is former VP nominee, is looking for other senators to join him in asking for the president to step down. This is something that will be discussed in history classes. Fodient (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt your WP:CRYSTAL ball works that well. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the point is that its not "prominent" members of his party; it's people like talking head James Carville and fossil fuel lobbyist Tim Ryan, whose (moderate) importance in the party is well in the past. Even the sitting senator you reference (Mark Warner, who was not the VP nominee; that's Tim Kaine) has not called for Biden to drop out. The media has intentionally built this narrative with tiny strings of innuendo and false implication that fall apart under the slightest inspection. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James Carville is a prominent Democrat political consultant, and any sitting member of congress that is a democrat is a prominent member of that party. You're right, I confused the VA senators. There are reliable sources to support Warner looking for other senators to ask Biden to step down, there are no reliable sources that state the media has intentionally built a narrative.Fodient (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reporting and opinion writing about it is there. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential debates#Calls for President Biden to drop out. A similar section already exists at 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, as well. It feels unnecessary to have three different articles about the same thing and it makes maintenance more difficult. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Wait because 2024 United States presidential debates#Calls for President Biden to drop out section was edited out of that article Lordofthefood1 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles to redirect it to: the debate article, List of Democrats who oppose Biden, or otherwise. No need to keep this article active much longer. Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the aforementioned sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely reported in the media and has a long-lasting impact. EpicAdventurer (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we set an egg timer to revisit all of the American politics mumbo-jumbo on November 6, when we are (closer to) capable of being normal about it? jp×g 🗯️ 08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It's honestly more telling that no significant figures are listed here. If he doesn't drop, it's a who-cares list of has-beens and never-will-bes. A lot of these guys are speaking up because it's the only way anyone would ever see their name in the news! If he does drop, its a side note on the main article. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this can just be a section in the 2024 election article instead. Qutlooker (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and the subject matter is very notable. I can't think of a more recent time in which this late into the primary/election cycle that there were growing calls for the presumptive nominee to withdraw from the race (a month shy from the nominating convention). Also gaining national and international coverage/attention. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the fact that it is the sitting President and not just a presumptive nominee. The calls are big. SDudley (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is of public interest and has the potential for expansion. It can serve as a starting point for further research and development by the Wikipedia community. If the topic is genuinely interesting to the public, it deserves a place on the platform.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is an important moment of American electoral history and it's educational for future people who wanted to learn what happened during this period of time.
Mason54432 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of this event is very self-evident. Party leaders are strongly suggesting the sitting president sit out a second term, which is unprecedented in American history. We are entering the 2nd week of the controversy with no signs of letting up until the convention, which has historically met WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DEPTH criteria for headlining national news. Baldemoto (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TDKR Chicago 101, Fodient, MarkiPoli, JMM12345, GoldWitness and Baldemoto, all of whom make cogent, compelling arguments in favor of keeping this important article. In contrast, !votes promoting deletion seem weak, strained or simply lack supporting commentary. Jusdafax (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep I am leaning keep as this is well discussed by reliable sources and meets criteria for being a notable event, but the article itself isn't very long. Maybe merge into Health of Joe Biden or some other related article? cookie monster 755 00:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a merge with Age and health concerns of Joe Biden and possibly 2024 United States presidential debates#Reception and aftermath might be warranted. It's reasonable to suggest that the concerns in the article has ultimately culminated in the controversy described in this article, meaning the article would fit neatly into this article's "background" section. The section on the aftermath of the debate linked above also holds very relevant information to this article. Merging both into this article could coalesce all relevant information regarding the concerns and controversies from 2020 to the present day into one article. Since "Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign" would not appropriately capture the breadth of such an article, the article could also be renamed something along the lines of "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign controversy", "Joe Biden age/health controversy" "Joe Biden 2024 presidential debate controversy", or something along those lines. Baldemoto (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Biden's age and health concerns? These should absolutely be in the same article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned by many already, this is unprecedented at least as modern U.S. presidential history goes. We can at least see how this develops until November, then revisit the topic of deletion? It is extremely notable, has extensive coverage, and is hardly an example of WP:RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS. We are not talking about some event that hit the tabloids, this is the President of the United States being asked to forfeit a race that he was slightly ahead in just mere months ago. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly a notable topic, it's been continuously top of the news for almost two weeks now. —Ashley Y 03:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The presidential debate page is becoming too long, and this story has dominated the news cycle for long enough. Additionally, the story continues to expand with each day, with new calls to drop out. Ageofultron 04:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a highly relevant political issue with massive amounts of attention in the news. David A (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep - a campaign asking a sitting President to drop out of the race with multiple US House representatives and a US Senator behind should be considered significant enough for Wikipedia. This article is a bit light on context and supporting details, so at the bare minimum it needs to be expanded and rewritten. I think that Age and health concerns of Joe Biden could be merged into this article as well. Flangalanger (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Keep” and “merge” are not the same thing. Prcc27 (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article about a notable topic covered with good references. Bernardo Botto (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely important part of the 2024 election cycle that will 100% be relevant in 10 years time, no matter if he stays in or not. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it won’t. If he drops, the main article would be Joe Biden’s suspended 2024 United States presidential campaign if anything; people “calling” on him to drop out would be less relevant than the actual action of him dropping out. If he continues to be the nominee and even wins, nobody will care and an article would seem unnecessary. Same as when people called for Trump to drop out in 2016, but he ended up winning; we don’t have an article for that. Prcc27 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't have the massive revolt against a sitting president after a primary season which he effortlessly won in 2016. Of course people were calling on Trump to drop out in 2016, he had a bunch of primary opponents and disapproval from past Republicans like the Bushes. The Biden situation is far different, significant, and has nearly no precedent- except for LBJ in 1968, which could easily use an article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creation of this is an act of the extraordinarily ill-informed, and a gaggle of "keep its notable!" votes miss the mark entirely. We should not create articles on a group of people who hold a singular, narrow opinion on a topic. Even if Biden were to withdraw from the race, an article on the people who said "drop out" is absurd. Non-news, non-encyclopedic, a myriad of wrong here. Zaathras (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really simply a "group of people" if that group includes several congresspeople, a senator, several Democratic donors (including one of the most prolific political donors in recent memory), the president's own aides, and, implicitly, the previous House speaker? One could argue that the article should be expanded to encompass more than simply the group of people in question, but I think calling such a large, sustained leadership push to oust the current president from the race "Non-news" or "ill-informed" is completely inappropriate. Baldemoto (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into the section on Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Obviously it should be covered, but this topic doesn't need its own page. Estreyeria (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if he doesn't drop out, this is an unprecedented open discussion to have ongoing about a presumptive nominee and sitting president. Plus as of only a few minutes ago, another three House Democrats have called upon him to drop out. This seems clearly notable. Cpotisch (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cpotisch. TheInevitables (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on the 2024 American presidential election, which has a section on this topic.Montgomery28 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is far from meeting the criteria for deletion, and it merits its own page. Large amount of media coverage and a critically important part of the election. Kentuckian |💬 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic will develop and events related to it will multiply. As Biden's age and health problems progress, so will more calls for him to step down. Such a situation with respect to the president and candidate for president of the United States has never happened before. Wikipek (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge - To 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Calls for Biden to step aside. Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait / Weak Keep -I think original nominator suggests likely to devolve into WP:POVFORK as a reason to delete. Likely to devolve into WP:POVFORK should not be an argument to avoid documenting on wikipedia. I also think that its unlikely any of us has the political foresight OR neutrality to properly comment on this topic until at least a month or so after the debate. A fair amount of supporter for Biden seem to be voting to delete, and supporters of removing biden suggest keep. I think notability of this as a lasting event or just another news cycle will depend deeply on time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Comment but we are having a similar deletion discussion on Age and health concerns of Joe Biden. I would support maybe Merge this article into that one. I also think we should not have a list of every hypothetical replacement for Biden on Wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: put the information on one of/and/or two articles: 2024 United States presidential election or Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. No need for a seperate, but this is notable enough a topic for inclusion, just not by itself on its own little kingdom. BarntToust (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the meat of it. This subject is notable and should be on the encyclopedia, but giving it its own article could be WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Why do we have this article while there are others which exist as similar topics (wp:POVFORK)? Toadette^Edit! 19:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Democrats opposed to Joe Biden's campaign; maybe make a segment for non-Democrats and/or rename the page to "List of those opposed to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. EPBeatles (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Even as a Biden voter, this is unfortunately an important article. Let's face it, his age and health has declined at a rather unprecedented level for a President, and democrats themself agree. There's stuff, everywhere in the media too. For The Times, Ross Douthat writes: Does America Need a President? Quote Veteran (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about his age and health; there is already an article for that. How many articles are we going to have on Biden’s age concerns? Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to Age and health concerns of Joe Biden which seems to have overlap. Why don't we just combine the two? Quote Veteran (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to that. I would think Age and health concerns of Joe Biden would be the main article and would be less likely to violate WP:NOTNEWS. Prcc27 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is widely covered and there's no reason to believe that it won't continue to grow in notability. Swinub (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect WAY too much overlap with List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, absolutely no need for a separate article here. Sure, the keep voters are right that this is significant, but there are already multiple pages covering this significant topic. Alternatively I suppose the list of opposers can be merged here instead, but the proliferation of recentism pages that say much the same thing is getting out of hand. Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Reywas92. Even if kept, the same content can be found elsewhere. Killuminator (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been one of the main topics on the news worldwide this entire year. Nice NPOV encyclopedia you've got here, lol. Kasperquickly (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article represents one of the downsides of counting on corporate media to be a "reliable source" that demonstrates the preponderance or weight of a subject. To a naked eye, an immense pile-on is occurring, even within the same outlet like the New York Times, that doesn't seem like standard journalism, but per our policies/guidelines, we are not to just ignore it. Strange times. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if Wikipedia is exactly as biased as the overall media in exactly the same ways, that means we're doing this volunteer job properly. There's always WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and WP:Deprecated sources. You've been around long enough to remember Wikipedia getting hoodwinked by "experts" with false credentials. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren’t ignoring it, it is already covered on several articles. But we have to be careful about creating new articles based solely on breaking news per WP:NOTNEWS. Prcc27 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is very clearly a POVFORK. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. That the article on Biden's election campaign is too long is not really an argument to keep this article, because the former itself needs trimming to remove NOTNEWS and other trivial stuff. If for any reason an article is warranted on this topic, we can always look back later when the dust has settled. Java Hurricane 13:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst the article name makes it sound slightly trivial, the controversy surrounding this makes it feel worthy enough to be an article, not to mention the whole kerfuffle is still happening. Silverleaf81 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCBT-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This television station does not contain the necessaryWP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. This subject did survive a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today, and a AfD earlier this year closed as non consensus due to low participation. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations: A relatively run-of-the-mill LPTV unlikely to have attained any significant coverage in all its years of carrying mostly full-time national services and/or other stations (at one point it was leased to the PBS station in Fresno, KVPT, to serve as its Bakersfield transmitter before KVPT acquired its own translator there). An ((R to list entry)) as an alternative to deletion is all we need in 2024. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wcwuidditch. No sources? No article. Danubeball (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHF-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Facility records and FCC licenses don't cut it, and a search didn't come up with much more. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations: A relatively run-of-the-mill LPTV unlikely to have attained any significant coverage in all its years of carrying either mostly full-time national services — or telling viewers what's on other channels in the market. A remnant of the far looser standards of 2006 (which hadn't tightened up all that well even in 2019; it only took two more years for that to change); an ((R to list entry)) as an alternative to deletion is all we need in 2024. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Wcquidditch. No good sources, no article.Danubeball (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracthyr[edit]

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

While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with ~~"there are no reliable sources"~~ "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.

I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight: per above. C F A 💬 02:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. The GNG is met, and arguments that this is a gameplay mechanic first and foremost aren't germane to whether it has garnered multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. I'm not opposed to an editorial merge, and it's a far superior ATD to deletion, but such a merger should not be forced by AfD when the sourcing is sufficiently robust to support a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:MERGEREASON and WP:NOPAGE. Just because a subject might be notable doesn't mean it needs its own article unless it's truly holds its own, which this does not. Taking a read for it myself, it seems to require a proper understanding of World at Warcraft, which violates MOS:VG and could stray into fandom territory. I don't see why the material from this page couldn't be merged into World of Warcraft. λ NegativeMP1 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Press quotes about how good an in-game ability feels might belong in the reception about the game, at most. Even something like Mario jump doesn't have its own article, despite its mention in lots of sources. There is a clear merge target for this gameplay at World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out where the "game guide" is within the article, and how each of the aforementioned above sources are trivial coverage? It contains no "how to" content for how to play the game, only an analysis of a particular race/class from a critical and development perspective. I would like more of an explanation as to how these are insufficient rather than a WP:VAGUEWAVE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not vaguewave, so I don't know why you're claiming that the user was doing that. They explained why they felt it wasn't in adherence, you disagreeing doesn'r make it vague. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ketterer[edit]

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

Article about an obscure subject that does not seem to be notable outside of some (likely incorrect) mentions that he invented the cuckoo clock. I cannot find sufficient sourcing to improve the article. Mbdfar (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~: Most sources online are clock stores and blogs which are not reliable. There are quite a few hits on Google books that claim he did indeed invent the cuckoo clock, some written in in the 1800s, so I do not entirely believe it is a myth that has just propagated around the internet. The article is obviously WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it would have to be rewritten and appropriately sourced. I believe the subject probably is notable if he did invent the cuckoo clock, I just don't think there's enough coverage to write an article claiming he did without WP:OR. With the coverage that I have found, the article would amount to nothing more than a short stub stating something like "Franz Ketterer was a German clockmaker who may have invented the cuckoo clock." If someone does look through Google books or elsewhere and finds even a bit more in-depth coverage, I will change my vote to keep. C F A 💬 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Cielquiparle for improving the article.
Keep and keep improving. Article was in dismal shape so have performed WP:TNT and rewritten with citations. Meets WP:GNG although the article is more about the historiography rather than a biography per se (not uncommon, the further back in history you go). While not every history mystery is worthy of a Wikipedia article, this one is because the village of Schönwald and other entities continue to promote the Franz Ketterer story. Good article to have flagged for cleanup, now we can keep improving. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Karl of Hesse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources include passing mentions in a couple of books about other people and a self-published fansite. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References add up to enough to pass GNG. The coverage of his wedding in 1966 by Pathé News, a British newsreel company, was the equivalent of coverage by network television news today. The book references are way more than passing mentions, and the subject doesn't have to be the primary topic of a book for it to be a valid reference. Being a German aristocrat is not by itself enough to establish notability, but an aristocrat who attracts consistent media attention can be notable. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him, but the French and Dutch ones do. Someone who reads German might be able to find additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just sources are just about sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to pass notability so meets WP:Basic. Azarctic (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wedding might be notable as a news event, but all the other citations are books about other people (Queen Sophia or the Nazi Hesses) or directories. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The only item that get somehow significant coverage was his marriage. Therefore this is a case for WP:ONEEVENT and this only got attention because of the attending guests, not the couple itself. So, no notability. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The several book notices of the subject pass WP:Basic. Axisstroke (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how you come to "serveral" book notices? 2 of the 4 books (with one listed double) are simple name directories, one is covering his father (with one trivial mention, that his father choosed the name "Adolf" for him to honor Adolf Hitler). I was not able to get access to the fourth book but given the sourced information and the title of the book, his coverage there is not substantial either. So, there is at maximum one book, which is very clearly about a differnt person. How can this add up to "significant coverage"? --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets at least WP:Basic. The fact that the wedding was attended by notable people is an indication of societal notability which also attracted media attention. And being cited in multiple books is an indication of notability even if he is not the subject of those books. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems notable for only one event, with a sprinkling of passing mentions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep barely fulfils WP:SIGCOV (but fulfils!) as Karl himself is not the subject of the books – only mentioned there, and I don’t see any more WP:GNG points checked here Vorann Gencov (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the basic, significant coverage, deleting an article about a controversial first cousin of the current King of the UK reduces our coverage. I also support keeping based on my own usual standards for royalty (see my user page). Bearian (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Arsène Lupin#Overview. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Balsamo[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scholar finds this book about Hayao Miyazaki's earlier works, which included one film adaptation of Lupin. I don't see an obvious way to access that work and see whether substantial coverage of this character might be present. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like there is a viewable preview of that book here. The coverage of the character in it is extremely minimal - basically mentioning her when describing the plot of the original story that The Castle of Cagliostro was loosely adapted from. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for confirming that. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview, where she is briefly mentioned. The current article is completely unsourced, and searching is not bringing up anything but brief mentions in plot summaries, such as in the book discussed above. Since there is no "character list" for the Lupin series, and the original story she appeared in does not seem to have its own article, redirecting to the main page where she is briefly mentioned appears to be the best viable target. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview per Rorshacma. This doesn't have enough sources but it is at least verifiable, with a valid redirect target, per WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messhof[edit]

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

Fails notability for a biography. See talk page for prior discussion, I think anything relevant here is feasible to merge into the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Messhof is a single game dev, so the article passes the subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. He "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". He has several independently notable games, and Ghost Bike is also likely to be notable upon release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "single game dev" exception seems arbitrary. What specifically, a collective body of work? I can see Nidhogg as a two part series but Ghostbike would appear independent and WP:TOOSOON. I would create a category with the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for "Mark Essen" instead of "Messhof" I have found dozens of articles about how he has been one of the few game devs to be recognized as an artist by the art establishment with his games being placed in various art galleries. This also passes the criteria "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did Messhof get significant coverage at those exhibitions? "Recognition" would fit for Video games as an art form but I don't think they pass the criteria. IgelRM (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM, the rule of thumb we typically use for creators is "two or more independently notable works". Basically, if there's only one notable work, we could easily add the biographical detail to that article rather than having a separate creator article. If there's more than one, or there's just so much coverage about both creator and work, then it makes more sense to have multiple authors. Since we have Nidhogg (video game), Nidhogg 2, and Flywrench, it's more convenient to have a separate article for the creator. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that role of thumb, I think e.g. every game director at Nintendo would be notable. IgelRM (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If every game director at Nintendo was a solo game dev, yes, they would be. However, they are not. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, source 3 is two photos and captions, nothing extensive. Source 7 is mainly an interview with this person; rest used in the article are only mentions of this person... Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything else about this person that isn't already in the article, and the sources aren't all about this person, or are trivial coverage. Just not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject's works are clearly the focus of multiple, reliable, independent sources, passing the general notability guideline as a creator. Our articles on his works (Nidhogg (video game), Flywrench, Nidhogg 2) each have sources covering his role in creating them. Additionally, reliable sources have also covered his other works not independently notable, such as Punishment 2[4] and Ghost Bike[5][6]. There is enough reliable source coverage of these other games that they wouldn't fit in an existing article and so the developer's own article is a natural place to cover them. czar 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Czar. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro forma note that Czar is the article creator. What I get out of the rockpapershotgun article is that Messhof created freeware games prior to Nidhogg with a similar aesthetic. IgelRM (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wrote the GA for Nidhogg (video game). Yes, the detail of those freeware games and the background on what became his most notable games are what justifies an independent article to house those details. czar 04:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; I guess I am being bold here, you have more editing experience than me. Right now, the details are basically only the game names, not even release years.

Edit: Hhm, if it wasn't structured as a bio and incorporated Flywrench, maybe it would make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a WP:NARTIST pass, see my reply to IgelRM above. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuckle Brothers[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's the 50 words in the OC Weekly article that's linked already, and there are mentions in student newspapers like the Daily Titan ([7], [8], [9]), but they can't establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBAND including #7 - not one of the more prominent purveyors of Orange County ska. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kinross[edit]

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

Does this even pass WP:GNG? The current references are certainly nowhere near up to scratch. One hit on Google News. Uhooep (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be multiple sources spanning several decades [10], [11], [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wikipedia Library lists 375 entries either about or mentioning him, including book reviews and an entry about him in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. Easily meets our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough coverage that meet WP:Basic. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract differential geometry[edit]

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

WP:OR: All this stub is based on 4 primary sources that have the same first author

WP:ORPHAN: All incoming links from the main space are in "See also" sections or in a stand-alone list. Apparrently, the only reason of these links is de-orphanization. D.Lazard (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would lightly support deletion. On Google Scholar, the "Geometry of vector sheaves" book has been cited 137 times, although the majority appear to be self-citations or citations of the form "for work on this related topic, see the book Geometry of vector sheaves". As far as I can tell (but without confidence), the topic is not of major research interest. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you did not find any reliable WP:secondary source that discusses the subject. D.Lazard (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to say anything definitive yet, but a first pass through the citations to both books has an anomalously high level of dubious sources: MDPI journals, unreviewed preprints, etc. In any case, this stub has been functionally abandoned since 2009, and the creator has not edited since 2010, so working on it doesn't seem to be anyone's top priority. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a real topic, with publications over decades. But as far as I can tell, all the work I've seen comprises primary sources, or secondary sources written by the primary authors. As far as I can tell there are no in-depth independent reliable sources for the topic, so an article would need original research to construct it. Hence delete, but happy to reconsider if substantial independent sources are found. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support of deletion. From what I've seen, this subject is decades away from being ready for a Wikipedia article. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or light merge: In the current state, it doesn’t pass the notability. Also, 1998 is too recent in mathematics and I couldn’t find any evidence that this is a very active research topic (if active, 1998 is still ok). It’s a bit unfortunate since the idea seems interesting. In fact, the abstract [13] mentions the sheaf-theoretic aspect and that’s not new and so maybe it is possible to mention the book in some way in some other articles; basically, there are many approaches to differential geometry and there might be a way to mention the book, although we need to assess the significance of the work. —- Taku (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mark viking. XOR'easter (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book is cited a rather small number of times by a small circle of researchers (according to zbmath). The idea of using sheaf theory as a foundation for differential geometry is also hardly original (as the article seems to imply): for instance there are two mathoverflow threads on the subject, one where this book is not even mentioned (https://mathoverflow.net/questions/17545/sheaves-and-bundles-in-differential-geometry) and the other where it appears pretty marginally (https://mathoverflow.net/questions/14877/how-much-of-differential-geometry-can-be-developed-entirely-without-atlases). jraimbau (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is really close to original research, and we don’t do WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cebu. Content is there should anyone wish to Merge any of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Cebu[edit]

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

I'd blank and redirect, but it seems an unlikely search term. I simply fail to see what pupose this article serves; there is already an article on Cebu. TheLongTone (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cebu. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not a useful outline, everything should be in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cebu (WP:OUTLINES may be embedded) and leave things for editors to sort out. Thincat (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As page creator, per Thincat.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Don't see any need for a redirect. Gjs238 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cebu. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also don't see any need for a redirect, and I don't think there is anything to merge. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not a plausible redirect. HueMan1 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No need for redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing to merge really and I don't see the point of a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Audiovisual archive. Owen× ☎ 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video logging[edit]

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

Bereft of encylopedic content, while the term is cleary genuine it's also pretty self explanatory (that video logging is the logging of video, thank you wikipedia). Reads somewhere between a how to guide and veichle for spam. Article isn't serving any purpose not met by Digital asset management, Content management etc. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of want to Keep just because Vlogging exists, can be called video logging as well, and this seems needed for distinguishment against that. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My first thought was to redirect to "vlog", but that's a different concept. This is categorizing videos, which seems self-explanatory and not really needing an article. This is at best a DICDEF that's too long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: Still think if this is deleted, “Video logging" redirects to “Vlog" Hyperbolick (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge and redirect to Audiovisual archive This seems like the proper place for an article to redirect to; though we certainly aren't logging physical tapes in plastic markers with magic marker regularly by any means, this fits right into the first half of creating an AV archive for sure, though most of it is probably automated these days. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Audiovisual archive. I like Nate's solution but I don't think there's any reason to merge this content, per nom's deletion rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tišťan[edit]

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics because I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. The only decent source I found is Netky where he was disqualified, but it looks nowhere near significant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Does not satisfy the criteria at WP:NATH, so a redirect is the best option. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics#Men. Doesn't meet WP:NATH and WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Neither of the two Keep views successfully countered the deficiency in sourcing. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fermor (Russian nobility)[edit]

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

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. ~~BAsically unreferenced.~~ - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) -- Update: The article creator now added many references, but none of them speaks about family, only about individual members. - Altenmann >talk 17:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 14 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!} 21:04, 21 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!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Both named individuals of the Fermor family have high military ranks: William Fermor, General in Chief with the notable act of occupying Berlin plus Governor of Smolensk and Pavel Fermor, first principal of the Alexander Military Law Academy. William Fermor is referenced in the SSNE database of the University of St Andrews^[1] as Commander in chief of Russian forces during the 7 year war. Axisstroke (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of some persons has nothing to do with the notability of the family. WP:NOTINHERITED - Altenmann >talk 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The family bore arms of count of the Holy Roman Empire, your argument is pretty thin. Axisstroke (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Evidence? Anyway, In Wikipedia a notability of a subject, namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)" is judged from the presence of reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS WP:CITE. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The SSNE entry 3876 referenced above lists it. Axisstroke (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  SSNE 3876 says not a word about Russian family.- Altenmann >talk 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  SSNE 3876 references count Wiliam Fermor, the most prominent member of this noble Russian family. Axisstroke (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the fourth time, I don't see any references about "noble Russian family" to assert its notability for English Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  " Governor General of Eastern Prussia and Commander in chief of Russian forces", how can that not be more russian?!?
  
  A family is the sum of its members of which there are several notable members.
  
  Repeating nonsensical stuff 4 or 5 times does not prove your point.
  
  The article subject is a Strong Keep as stated early on. Axisstroke (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Several persons with the same surname does not prove they constitute a family notable per Wikipedia requirements.
  
  You keep ignoring my request to provide reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. I find it really strange to call wikipedia policies "nonsensical stuff". - Altenmann >talk 17:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The family has among its members several military leaders, one of the richest female entrepeneurs and has an high noble title. You seem not to have looked up the russian sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems your only argument. Also please stop removing relevant material. Axisstroke (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, I think I understood where the misunderstanding comes from. Please provide sources about the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") rather than about individual members. In English Wikipedia Notability is not inherited. - Altenmann >talk 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  While the individual sources already give enough weight to its individual members of the family added relevant sources. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent sources demonstrating notability for the family itself, this needs to be deleted. WP:NOTINHERITED goes both ways—a person does not become notable simply by belonging to a notable family, and likewise a family does not become notable simply by having notable members. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true and easily fixed from russian literature. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several entries and notable references to the Fermor family added. Axisstroke (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian language article mentions two presidents of the Duma of the same noble family. Unfortunately this probable claim/titles is written without direct reference. Axisstroke (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the ukraine entry found a historical database entry of one Duma depute of the family, so added that too. Thank you for reevaluating on the now quite extensive list of important positions of the family Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Famous members do not make a family notable. See WP:NINI and WP:BIOFAMILY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rules that you cite apply for single members of a famous family. Here we discuss a renowned family with famous members and several references. Axisstroke (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update the noble Russian family Count Fermor is displayed in beautiful portraits in the State Russian museum: daughter and son of General Wiliam Fermor (see gallery of the entry). The daughter Sarah Eleanore Fermor of General Wiliam Fermor is considered to be Ivan Vishnyakov most beautiful portraits. The display of this family portraits already underlines the notability of the russian Fermor family.

Members of the noble family have several historic reference: An aide du camp of the Polish Governor got shot by revolutionists in 1906 during the Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907), a count donated a Mammoth to the National Museum of Natural History, France^[1] and held important Russian military and civil position. The count title gives enough notability to deserve the article. Moreover the family is referenced in several Russian genealogy books.

Furthermore US press considers Count Fermor to be "a member of one of the most aristocratic Russian families"^[2] and a a "descendant of the first Russian dynasty".

sidenote: In contrast to false User:Altenmann claims the history of the article in question shows well that I am not the creator of it, just merely improving it now and pointing out the importance of the Fermor (Russian nobility). Axisstroke (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"descendant of the first Russian dynasty" and "one of the most aristocratic Russian families" are nonsense newspaper hype that cannot be taken seriously as proof of notability. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hype is usual in US newspaper. Nevertheless good hype based on that family members gave their life for the Russia Empire. Axisstroke (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep stands. (And no this is not a second vote just a reiteration based on the updated article on the noble Counts Fermor).

Axisstroke (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. More sources would still be needed for a more definite statement. Updated 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Delete unless references about the family, not individual members, are found. Are there no family entries in any Russian-language encyclopedias, or is it just that this family is not covered? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The counts of Fermor are covered in the first three references. Why do you claim they are not covered?

Moreover in the update above is indicated that the family is covered by special portraits in the Russian State museum: Daughter and Son of the General Count Fermor. How can the son and daughter not count as family members?

How does the grand daughter who was one of the richest female entrepreneurs not count as family member? The claims by the initiator of the delete request that the Counts are not covered is not true.

Moreover you seem to ignore the visit of the ambassador of Bismarck, which stayed at the family home in St Petersburg, when he was German Ambassador in Russia and got Russian lessons by the family of the counts of Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the confusion stems that the German nobility title given to General Wiliam Fermor got recognized by the Russian emperor directly afterwards. So it is a German title for a Russian family in the Russian Empire (including baltic states). Axisstroke (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the exact pages in e.g. Baltisches Wappenbuch? I also don't see an entry for Fermor family in Titled nobility of Europe. Please provide quotes if the Google Books snippet search is not accurate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added google books links for the first references to help to clarify. The pages to the Reichsgraf title are on page 32^[3] "Reichs Graf 12. 6.1758" and on page 37 of the additional text to the book^[4] "1759 Graf Fermor, Wilhelm Senateur zu Nitau, Mahrzen, Muehlgraben" (Baltic property of the family).

First of all the title of the page is "Fermor (Russian nobility)". The title given by Maria Theresia to General Wiliam Fermor is Reichsgraf as referenced. Reichsgraf is a high noble title so notability of the nobility is given. The title is hereditary hence any descendant got it.

Second of all the portraits of his son and daughter are high class portraits by one of the best painter. At the time this was not done for peasants and the Russian state museum portraits underline the notability of the family. I am quite puzzled why this portraits would not count in the referenced notability of the Count Fermor's.

Third of all the family is referenced in the two other secondary books. Axisstroke (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The titled nobility book picks up the female Fermor descendant line, see page 1396 where Count Fermor becomes hereditary Count Stenbock Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what kind of entries are sought, here's an example from Swedish biographical dictionary for House of Bjälbo: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/mobil/Artikel/14301 That entry discusses the family itself, not only the individuals. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"General Fermor, whose origin is unknown to me, signalized himself in the Seven Years' war, and was created Count in the year 1788, June 12th. His name passed to a branch of the Counts of Stenbock, an illoustrous family in the records of Sweden"^[5]

Summarizing the son (portrait 2) of the General has no known descendants, his daughter Sarah (portrait 3) marries a count Stenbock and their son (grand-son of the General) becomes count Stenbock Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above, and this reference gives information about the Stenbock-Fermor line at least. Here's a somewhat more substantial reference contributing to notability of the Fermor name: Российская родословная книга, Том 2 (p. 259, or search for Fermor) The translated and annotated version currently present in the article does not contain as much information. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this is a great reference and information which is not present in any either language [ru, uk] Fermor entry. I will add shortly. Thank you. Axisstroke (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morfill 1902: A history of Russia, from the birth of Peter the Great to Nicholas II mentions that William Fermor was of English extraction, and connected with the same family which claimed the famous Arabella, the heroine of the "Rape of the Lock. This is such a brief mention that I don't consider it contributing to notability (which I still find borderline) but may nevertheless be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right there is also a funny conspiracy theory involving a count Steinbock Fermor plotting the Death of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, see section "Suicide ordered by "court of honor". I won't include these speculations. Axisstroke (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't yet included the full info from the russian book, will do over next days. Axisstroke (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete per WP:TNT. I don’t see how any other editor can’t see the numerous issues with this page and think that it’s anything more than a very poorly translated and formatted article. If this family were really famous, they would have many more sources, and at least some editors would fix it. Right now, this is looking like many hours of editing. Even assuming, arguendo, that this passes barely, it’s a hot mess, as the kids say. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first four and the sixth references in the intro show the relevance of the family. There were none when this procedure started. The references on the Fermor nobility are in German, Russian and English, so if there is any doubt on them that be good to hear. At this point as referenced article it is on the initiator or endorser to show that the references would not bear notability.

Besides the nuclear option, any constructive advice. Axisstroke (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded intro and fixed to have the first five important references as the relevant ones. Axisstroke (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references that discuss the family in reasonable depth, only mention it or describe its members. - Altenmann >talk 01:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: The coat of arms is for the family as it's hereditary title. The book references speak about both the family and it's individuals, as a family is the sum of it's members. The Ivan Vishnyakov portraits are quite notable, plus there are both Russian and Ukraine entries of the Fermor nobility. Axisstroke (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The portraits contribute nothing towards notability. They do not illustrate many generations of family, it's just William Fermor's children. Wikipedia entries also do not count since they are not considered reliable. Coat of arms is something to be discussed in the article, but notability is determined from textual material. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that each Wikipedia has it's own rules. Nevertheless if the family would not have Russian and Ukranian entries that would point to a lack of notability. Axisstroke (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Argument as a placeholder. There is unanimous agreement not to keep this article, but no consensus as to the best redirect target. Any editor is welcome to replace with a better target, or carry out a page-swap. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement[edit]

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

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a one-line WP:DICTDEF because nobody could agree on a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly something that should be redirected, but to what is the question. Disagreements (epistemology), Dissent, Objection (argument), Argument, etc. all seem like valid targets. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then move Disagreements (epistemology) to this title because the subject of that article corresponds to this one. Use a hatnote to point to the other redirect targets mentioned byCurbon7. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements (epistemology) has too many problems of its own to be the primary topic here. A broad-concept article at Agreement might be the best target; but I am not sure any redirect is better than the current quasi-DAB setup. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to any of the above choices. This article exists because nobody could what???????? 🤔

jp×g 🗯️ 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Leap Motion. Debate about switching the redirect target to Torch (company) can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buckwald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly obvious WP:REFBOMB with largely worthless non-WP:GNG compliant sources like [14] and [15]. Looking at the new sources since the last AFD not addressed by the nom [16] there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I suppose every so often the UPEs will try again when they have new paid placements or references with passing mentions that can be added to game G4 but it is what it is. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leap Motion (the company he was formerly CEO of) does have an article; his current company (Torch Sensors) does as well (much more dubiously). There is a non-trivial amount of coverage from c.2013. The article needs cleanup, but I am undecided between keep, redirect, and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh90210 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked all of the refs here (very bombed) and only one has more than a mention of him and that is an interview. Everything else name-checks him in an article about a product. Many of the refs that I checked do not verify the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should add that I did the usual G-search and found no significant independent sources. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Torch (company) where he is mentioned. Or his earlier company, Leap Motion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but since his name appears at both we have a classic WP:XY and I would rather not kick this one to RFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:780A:A70F:B434:93EA (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leap Motion: The sourcing presently in the article is all about Leap Motion, I'd redirect there. The Time magazine interview doesn't help notability, but does talk about Leap. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I lean towards trimming the page and leaving the basic information. Redirecting to another page is not optimal either. The person has a basic level of notable media coverage and is generally notable. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have both Torch (company) and Leap Motion, I think there's a reasonable argument to keep this for the same kinds of reasons we keep authors of multiple notable books, painters of multiple notable paintings, etc. But I don't like it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CKM NSS Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV found anywhere and the sources used are entirely primary sources. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with an advertisement WP:PROMOTION, the referenced source is the school's promotional website ~ ~ Spworld2 (talk) 03:42, 06 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is WP:PROMO. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nikhil Nanda#Personal life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agastya Nanda[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited–being a member of a notable family is not an exception, infact, it is the true definition. Having asserted above, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR because he only started in one or two films, and not multiple. Infact, most of the sources were about the family, and not this young actor. In regards to that, there is more to draftifying and marking as promised because this is a clear issue of WP:TOOSOON. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikhil_Nanda#Personal_life: mentioned there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, fails WP:ACTOR also WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Iranian films of the 2000s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue (film)[edit]

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

From the current state of the article, it is clear it doesn't meet WP:NFILM; no critical review from reliable sources or rating in any film rating platform. If sources are found, ping me. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Film, and Iran. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination statement to which I have nothing to add. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Iranian films of the 2000s: given the notable cast. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NFILM. The director looks notable for other projects and probably merits an article. But the only non-trivial mention of this film I can find is a short summary in a BBC article about the director. hinnk (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BigID[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Sources are _almost entirely_ related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and New York. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all relevant notability guidelines of WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC and WP:NCORP in its current status. All sources are PR distributed material with a clear evidence in the photo caption. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Christopher Evans[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG per these sources found and added to the article [17][18]. These sources give sigcov and seem credible to pass for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being denied access to a source in not a proper reason for deleting an article. The source is still available in an archive (now added]. I find the coverage to be significant and dealing with more than routine about his career progression. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat The access denied thing isn’t why it is a bad source, but rather that it isn’t independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both of the sources provided by Ednabrenze appear to contain multiple paragraphs of significant and independent coverage with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: right now, there is significant coverage, which is what we want. I don’t know what happened before this. In any case, the DEA had acting administrators for over six years, a scandal. Bearian (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Payne[edit]

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

Notability of the individual is questionable, and as I've noted before his article is written like a resume. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Probably passes AUTHOR, a few book reviews found [19], [20], [21], but the sourcing used now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite a well known figure, has been a guest on Question Time (TV programme) for example and I think he meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria of being an 'important figure' as his career changes have been reported on independently.[22]. Agree the article reads like a resume though, needs work. Orange sticker (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep WP:SIGCOV is present, notable as per WP:JOURNALIST criterium 1 Vorann Gencov (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR based on sources presented above. Article needs cleanup, not deletion. Sal2100 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish musicians[edit]

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

WP:SALAT, the scope of the list is too broad. There are more than 2300 pages in Category:Spanish musicians, this list is useless without further subdivision. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Spain. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be subdivided alphabetically when needed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template:Musicians by country shows these articles are common, wouldn't make sense to have one country not on the list. Being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete any article, nor is the arguments "its useless". If there was a bot someone could run to grab basic information from the infoboxes of the articles linked to, and add that to table formation, years active, what type of music they play, etc, it'd be more useful. Dream Focus 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that the list is incomplete. A list of 2300 entries would be far too wieldy, and the potential entries that do not yet have a Wikipedia article are even more. According to WP:SALAT Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections, hence my comment about the usefulness of the list. In particular, I am concerned by having an endless and incomplete list of blue links, with no additional information, and no curation. The argument "these articles are common" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of these lists were created in the early years of Wikipedia (when they maybe contained only a handful of entries) and have been kept per status quo, but now have no reason to exist. Broc (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size of a list is never a valid reason for deletion. Many list simply break off into smaller list when they get too large. List of aircraft, Lists_of_stars#By_proximity, etc. Dream Focus 00:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRIT -- more specifically, poorly defined inclusion criteria -- what does originating from Spain mean? If a person is born in Spain but moves to another country at an early age, does that count? Or vice versa? What about at a later age? What about citizenship change? What about very old entries where "Spain" then wasn't the same as "Spain" now? Using modern political boundaries as a subdivider is inherently problematic, which brings to my next point -- this is also an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the different combination of ways you could subdivide. Is this using "musician" to subdivide a "list of Spaniards", or is it using "Spanish" to subdivide a "list of musicians"? Why not by style/genre instead? Or birth year? Or alphabetical? This sort of random intersection of properties is best left for Wikidata. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This debate is probably going to end with "no consensus" due to conflicting WP policies. This list of Spanish musicians probably violates WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT because it's just a poorly-defined and never-ending pile of blue links. On the other hand, different WP policies would support this article's existence because of many similar list articles found at Template:Musicians by country. But if you browse all the other country lists, most of them have the exact same problems as this one. I submit that this is a bigger policy challenge beyond assessing the usefulness of this list about Spain, but an AfD discussion almost never results in deeper discussions of larger policy conflicts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 I do not see any conflicting policy. I see WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT showing that this stand-alone list should not exist because too broad in coverage and with no clear inclusion criterion. I even see troubles with WP:NLIST as I could not find a single source that publishes a full list of Spanish musicians. I see many entries in Template:Musicians by country that could possibly deleted under the same arguments. Those lists have varied levels of curation and subcategorization, hence might deserve separate discussions. What would you suggest is the right forum for discussion, if not AfD? Broc (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broc - I agree with your assessment, but look at the "Keep" votes here which are also based on policy. I've seen this happen many times before and it will happen again. Here people will argue about this individual article and nobody will address bigger issues, probably not even the Admin who is guaranteed to say "No Consensus" at the end. Meanwhile, there are folks who discuss policies for lists and others who discuss policies for categories and others who discuss policies for templates etc. etc. etc. Just imagine getting them coordinated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard list for a topic notable as a set, with a clear defining criteria.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see Template:Musicians by country, There's a lot of these lists, and a random look at some seems to indicate that none of these have sourcing. They're just existing lists by country. Some are just alphabetical lists, and others include really nice images. If we keep these lists, I don't see how we can cherry pick and eliminate certain ones, but keep the others. — Maile (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dreamfocus. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sher Bengali[edit]

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

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails notability and the sources on the page are poor to unreliable WP:HISTRS with many failing verification with no significant coverage on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are 1, 2, 3, 4. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowwhoistheman (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is confusing and does not show why the subject is notable. Passing mentions collected together does not add to notability or establish a coherent timeline.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage only Passing mentions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilangkattuvalasu[edit]

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

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Geonames.nga.mil reports that the village (which it spells Vilangāttuvalasu) is located at 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333 14145226 N (Approved) . Google Maps shows a temple in the village with the address 4Q47+HCR, vilankattu valasu, Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu 638109, India. So if that is correct, we also know the village's PIN code. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t agree that these are substantial enough to show notability. The temple is the only place in that location that uses this name, whereas all other buildings surrounding it use the name Kodimudi, the taluk and the taluk headquarters. The temple name may be user generated and may not reflect official designation. Kazamzam (talk) 12:04, 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!} 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything in a search of the 2011 India Census data. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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