Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

31 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 30	September 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Andrej Petrovský

AfDs for this article:

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

I have searched his name in conjunction with *any club he has played for* and "site:.sk", but didn't find any significant coverage that would meet WP:GNG. The best secondary source I found was AktualitySK, which only mentions Petrovský in an image caption when he played for Skalica in 2016. Minus database sources, I only found namesakes and a lot of hits about the unrelated ice hockey player Servac Petrovský. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ukraine, Copenhagen

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

Mainly based on primary sources and fails WP:ORG. Sources 3-10 merely confirm former ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Denmark, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Şefik Pasha

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

Surprisingly the Turkish article also has no sources. As a fair number of Turkish editors are interested in history I thought better to open for discussion rather than “prod”. Is he notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Informatics Olympiad

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

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have linked Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources in the Turkish article are Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to cite Turkish sources that would be great Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chulo Magazine

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

Reviewed for NPP. No independent sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only source provided is primary. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Slovakia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Slovakia–United Kingdom relations. Both articles are short and the target is helped by the source. Why wasn't this ATD proposed upfront? gidonb (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gidonb. I'm not sure why these articles persist in being nominated at AfD when the can and should be merged and/or redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BLAR: An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. Given you and the over AfD participant seem to prefer merging over redirecting, sending this to AfD seems to me like the right call. Pilaz (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merge because the target article has zero secondary sources, no encyclopedic content and should be deleted. No secondary sources at this page either. By the way, AfD is an appropriate venue to discuss merging or redirecting. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to Merge this article but now there is opposition to that closure so I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can get to a consensus. Would folks accept a Redirect instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Important article about a notable building in Bratislava. Cantab12 (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet a notability guideline? Where are the sources to back your claims? LibStar (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Bhutta

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

I can find sources to show that other individuals with the same name are notable, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Tanioka

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan, Daviess County, Indiana

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

Baker identifies this as a post office and this 1915 county history identifies it as a station on the old C&EI where there was a mill. That's what it looks like on the maps too: a rail point without a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuki Otake

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonye Irims

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted back in 2021 due to a lack of notability. Not sure if he meets WP:GNG or other notability criteria now. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WiSolar: Found only this GNG-worthy piece here but one is not enough. If anyone finds more please ping me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Found some of his profile here [1] and another with Business Insider outlet [2] @Vanderwaalforces:Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAFU U20 Women's Cup

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Abandoned article, it talks about a first edition in 2022 and which was not carried out. Svartner (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Africa, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Senegal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Democratic National Convention

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

I am unsure as to whether there are enough sources to justify the existence of this article at this juncture. PlateOfToast (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common technical regulation

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

Unreferenced since 2009, no apparent WP:GNG emerges from the article. BEFORE in GS shows some uses, but nothing that suggests stand-alone notability (WP:SIGCOV). No idea where this could be redirected, although WP:ATD-R is always an acceptable alternative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Europe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Strum

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think the sources here meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NM, save for a writing credit on Why Not Us, which is rather weak on its own. Consult the table of relevant sources in the article. Nothing in my WP:before search was of higher quality.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Templeton, Tom (31 July 2005). "Introducing...Alexis Strum". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			little content outside of fluff and quotes	✘ No
Scott, Danni (5 October 2023). "'A mix-up over ice cream on Lorraine cost me my music career 20 years ago – but now I'm back'". The Metro. Retrieved 5 October 2023.	~	WP:METRO		✘ No
Strum, Alexis (23 July 2023). "I'm finally the pop star I dreamed of becoming – and I'm in my forties". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	written by Strum	~		✘ No
Krieger, Candice (3 March 2011). "Alexis Strum lands a starring role at your fingertips". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			Short article from when watching TV on phones was novel, with a few sentences of background on Strum at the end.	✘ No
Glanvill, Natalie (17 June 2015). "Kylie Minogue Songwriter to stage Homeland meets Loose Women play". Guardian Series. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	Mostly quotes or other stuff obviously sourced to Strum	?	~	✘ No
"Comic documentary about failure in development". British Comedy Guide. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	mostly quotes from Strum	~		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and England. Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a teeny bit more searching, noting small amount of coverage here. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Black Day

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

Appears like 2 articles exist for same context. Jammu and Kashmir Black Day. Why do we need 2 articles on same issue? Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~What's the second article then? It's not obvious from the article and your complete lack of description.~~ I see it now. I still wouldn't use AfD as an avenue as requesting a merge in the talk pages would probably be better. – The Grid (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that Kashmir Black Day and Jammu and Kashmir Black Day are two different topics. I’m unsure if Kashmir Black Day meets the WP:N but the current AFD appears unclear. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, It would be better to request a merge in that case. The article in current state appear to be related to two different observances one celebrated by Pakistan and other by India respectively. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 05:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No reason to merge as two different observances in two different countries. War Wounded (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The deletion rationale is that we didn't need two articles on the same subject. But now that it's been argued that these articles cover two different subjects, are there any other valid grounds for deletion? Clearly editors are opposed to a Merge but that is not the same as arguing to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fleeting Ends

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

Not seeing anything that would make this a pass under WP:BAND. No in depth reviews, charting records or significant awards or recognition. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yogacharya Govindan Nair

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

I don’t see any sources in English to support WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written multiple books but I see no in-depth reviews, just online bookshops and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and India. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Twenty Seventh Edition of his book was released on the International day by the publisher who published his book nearly 4 decades ago. here is the link https://www.instagram.com/dcbooks/p/C8eOMOMyNxz/?hl=en&img_index=1 2405:201:E010:706F:F0B9:15A2:5E91:AA5B (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:NBIO. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, who is not widely cited by peers or successors. As Author and Yoga instructor, subject has not created a significant or well-known work and I cannot find subject's work in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The article creator objects to deletion (see User talk:Versatilegeek#Nomination of Yogacharya Govindan Nair for deletion) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources for the article and there is no ground for deleting this page. Lack of contribution does not necessitate deletion of a page. Such a practice will only contribute to removal of information about the lesser known people. I strongly oppose the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatilegeek (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this comment which was placed outside the discussion so I have moved it here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suborno Isaac Bari

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

An article on the same person was previously deleted (twice) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari. It is now four years later and he has been admitted to college but he has still not reached the level of adult notability for his achievements in math or physics. (See WP:PRODIGY.) CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for including the previous AFD nominations in your statement. Since the subject has already been to AFD before, Soft Deletion is not an option here. However, I think the sources have improved a lot since those 2020 AFDs so a source review would be helpful rather than just rubber-stamping the closure of the previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

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

I added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is "very highly cited" then it satisfies the guideline WP:TBK. NBOOK, like PROF, is, by design, not just a rehash of GNG. The book has some coverage in Reference and Research Book News, and a thorough description of the book (which will not fit in the author's article) is helpful. [I struck my previous !vote which discussed possible merger and redirection targets.] James500 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it is a rationale for relaxing the degree of sigcov required for academic publications, but not that it is an excuse to not have any - it's phrased in a vague way that imply a combination of several of these factors may help, and this doesn't hit too many of them. The R&R Book News publication is two sentences which just summarize the book - they don't really do reviews, it's usually just a sentence on "this book was published and here is what it's about", which can be helpful but which does not help notability IMO. AFAIK it is generally frowned upon to only have material in an article that is sourced from the topic itself, and that's really all we can get here. "very" highly cited was probably an overestimation on my part, but it does have some yes PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of TBK is mistaken. TBK says nothing about "significant coverage". The entire purpose of TBK is to disapply GNG. James500 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well TBK is vague and does not have any clear-cut guidelines like NBOOK does, only "possible findings" and a suggestion to use common sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The possible findings for notability under WP:TBK, as listed without elaboration, are some combination of the following:

whether the book is published by an academic press, (no)

how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, (cited a decent amount, but not to an exceptional degree)

the number of editions of the book, (a few, not very high)

whether one or more translations of the book have been published, (none)

how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, (not very)

whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions (no)

Hence, I disagree with a keep vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at GScholar, Kamali seems to have an exceptional level of citation. The average h-index for a law professor is less than 3, because it is a low citation field for academics. He is said to be "the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language". I am tempted to invoke BKCRIT #5. James500 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's definitely notable. BKCRIT #5 only applies to people whose "life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.", which he is not, but I guess I can see your case here. Unfortunate that we only have an article on what appears to be the least notable of his many works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures and Options" has 333 GScholar citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures" has 75 citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Options" has 66 citations. That is a total of 474 citations. I would say that it actually is very highly cited. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion, between two experienced, well-intentioned editors is about as No Consensus as you can get. More participation here would help but I'm not sure if the subject area is too niche to draw in other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand women's national under-18 softball team

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team

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

The subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The only sources in the article are primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything that would establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Softball and Thailand. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero third-party coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémate

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

I cannot find any Reception on this game. I found this TheGamer source: https://www.thegamer.com/pokemate-pokemon-go-precursor/ but it was published before TheGamer's reliability date of August 2020, meaning it provides as much notability to the subject as an average Valnet source. Beyond that, Game Rant briefly discussed it, but it also does not add to notability and is part of this listicle. I checked Japanese sources, and found only passing mentions of the game's existence, and the sources in the article are either routine coverage of the game's announcement or not enough to establish notability. There is no Reception to really build this article with. A viable AtD for this subject is the "List of Pokemon video games" article, where the subject is mentioned, in order to preserve page history. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I did find this, but it still isn't enough for GNG. It could have a brief list explanation for what it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. I'm assuming that the desired target article is List of Pokémon video games, is that correct? It helps to provide a direct link to the target article as there could be other similarly named articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made sure to state the exact article title in the nomination for clarity, but yes, List of Pokémon video games is my suggested AtD target. Admittedly unsure of how to hyperlink while using Twinkle, so apologies about that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents

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

Very sparse article with a strange criteria (why only recent presidents?) and quite frankly, is only substantive for Trump (where it's a list of people who worked under him who now consider him to be incompetent). No substantive content besides the list of scandalous Trump politicians, which are covered elsewhere. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand substantially further back in time, and provide some refined guidelines for what constitutes a "controversy". An "impeachments" section that does not mention the impeachment of Bill Clinton is lacking, to begin with. While there are periods that historians would deem the cutoff for "modern" presidencies, I would think that this would go at least as far back as Nixon, and possibly as far back as Kennedy. BD2412 T 02:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For one definition, see Stephen Hess and James P. Pfiffner, Organizing the Presidency, Third Edition (2020), stating "The modern presidency began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his leadership of the United States through the Great Depression and World War II". BD2412 T 03:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I went ahead and expanded it back to Reagan since that was as far back as the Brookings analysis went on turnover by administration Superb Owl (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I chose 2 presidents from each party for starters to try and keep it balanced. I will not object if other editors want to expand it. Do not see any reason for deletion. Superb Owl (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST. High Crimes and Controversy: Noteworthy Presidential Scandals, Presidential scandals throughout history, Among 160 years of presidential scandals, Trump stands alone; What Was the Biggest Political Scandal in American History? 7 Historians Make Their Picks. Given the scope of this topic, reasonable to apply WP:LISTCRIT to limit to particular era. There are some problems: not convinced that "recent" is useful since it dates immediately, splitting by centuries might be useful; also, the table skates close to WP:OR - what source identifies scandals using that typology? Nevertheless, these are content issues, not notability issues. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine as long as only notable controversies are included. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicated information that is found at List of federal political scandals in the United States. I don't think a redirect would be helpful. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, @Goldsztajn, @Dympies, does the presence of List of federal political scandals in the United States change your analysis? - Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the differences between the two. The List of federal political scandals in the United States is difficult to read, includes legislators who are not associated with presidents, and is impossible to compare across presidencies. That article also does not categorize scandals by type and excludes Criticism from former allies, excludes turnover comparison, and excludes family members category. Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest there are no differences - but the way List of controversies of recent U.S. Presidents is presented (to me), is very confusing and there is no information about the "controversy" and does not address the very real content concerns raised by BD2412, Goldsztajn, and Dympies. Looking at the list in the article, I do not know what "Major criticism of the President" means - does that mean the individual listed expressed concerns about the president? Also, I should be able to know at a glance why Eric Lander was part of a Biden administration scandal. I was about to say this should be TNT'd, but then I found a much more comprehensive article already written. - Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive in some areas but not in others. There is a real lack of discussion of presidential scandals in Wikipedia. I think given the growing power of the presidency, that we need a more coherent article to summarize the performance of presidents along these lines that is not bogged down with a massive list of congressman and judges and others that are not part of the executive branch Superb Owl (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is a need for an article substantively focused on the performance of presidential administrations in this area (not just general occurrences in other branches coinciding with the timing of a presidential administration), and that what constitutes a "scandal" or "controversy" should be well-defined for inclusion. The latter is something missing from this article, but readily fixable within its scope. BD2412 T 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl - the only consideration is reliable sourcing - our own perceptions of the changing status of the US Presidency can't inform this discussion. @Enos733 - thanks for the ping and drawing my attention to the other article. I'm looking at this purerly from a sourcing (ie notability) perspective. For this list, I find sourcing that satisfies this specific class, but which does not statisfy a general list of federal political scandals. Looking at the federal list, notwithstanding WP:NEXIST, I do not see sourcing present in that article which satisfies that specific class. Given the prominance in the sourcing assocated with Presidents, this list, at least on first glance, has a stronger founding in sourcing and thus a stronger claim for notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost duplicate of List of federal political scandals in the United States. We need only one article on this topic. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States. This is a WP:COATRACK and unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging would be unnecessary since the content is a bit of a disaster, but regardless of the condition there's a policy basis for redirection. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal political scandals in the United States, per Dclemens1971. Bothsidesism has destroyed many once reliable sources, and forks about controversies have wrecked parts of Wikipedia. A controversy about email servers versus hundreds of crimes and scandals is what has gotten us into this fine ness. No thank you. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table tries to distinguish between scandals, indictments and felonies, unlike the List of federal political scandals in the United States. I reorganized based on the most serious first and removed Hillary Clinton (which was a borderline case that is not in the List of federal political scandals) Superb Owl (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between editors advocating Keep, Delete and Redirect. No one has mentioned this in the discussion but the article being discussed is very weighted towards the Trump administration and lighter on other administrations, does that impact the outcome participants are seeking?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of virtualization development

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

It is not at all clear what anything in this article has to do with Virtualization or "Virtualization development" which is not defined in the article or even the article it links to (which I have also opened an AFD for). This appears to mostly consist of WP:OR and I don't think there's any way of cleaning it up or establishing notability as it is completely unclear what the article is even supposed to be about. If not deleted, I believe this needs to be moved to "Timeline of computer virtualization" or something similar and will require a complete rewrite. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualization Development

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

This article does not distinguish Virtualization development from the concept of virtualization. It was recently changed from a redirect to an article by moving material from timeline of virtualization development, but unfortunately that material does not seem to make it at all clear what the subject matter of this article is intended to be. I would guess from the title it is the use of virtual machines for software development, or the development of virtual machines but I don't think either of these merit their own article at it is also not at all discussed in the article as it stands. It also appears to largely consist of WP:OR, and notability cannot be established since it's unclear what the article is about in the first place. I would propose it be merged into Virtualization but I don't think there's anything in the article worth moving at this time. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Developer

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Historyexpert2 What are the reasons for nominating this article, Smarter Planet, and IBM Master Inventor? Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
- The quality was not improved in a decade or more
Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smarter Planet

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
The quality was not improved in a decade or more
To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Master Inventor

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

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Historyexpert2, what is your rationale for nominating these articles? C F A 💬 02:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
- The quality was not improved in a decade or more
- To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.
Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHFD

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

Looking at a web search, the airport appears to be the overwhelmingly primary topic. The disambiguation can be replaced by a redirect and a hatnote at the airport article (a previous attempt at redirecting the article has been reverted by the page creator). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close this is a requested move, not a deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not requesting any moves. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To the nominator, please provide a link to your proposed Redirect target article which should have been included in your nomination statement. At least that's what I think you are asking for, I'm not sure. Also, you didn't need an AFD to turn an article page into a Redirect. AFD is for proposing that articles be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the airport article, which was implied by the nomination. Also, I didn't feel like immediately redirecting a disambiguation page since it likely doesn't have a lot of watchers so figured to draw some attention to it. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since I only just realised that @Bkonrad (who did not comment here) has added another meaning, it seems logical to just move this page to KHFD (disambiguation). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but please don't just refer to "the airport article", please add a link to the specific redirect target article you want. If this discussion closes as a Redirect, the closer shouldn't have to go looking themselves to find out what you meant and could have mentioned in your original nomination statement. Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to WP:REDIRECT: "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.^[1]", citing an RFC. So it's not necessary, but according to that guideline when the article is contested some form of outside input is necessary and AFD is an option.

It does seem kind of like a requested move what with everyone talking about the primary topic and all: the thing I just quoted doesn't mention disambiguations?

Airport mentioned seems to be the Hartford–Brainard Airport.

I guess a {{redirect}} template could be added, and a KHFD (disambiguation) page could be created?

Support redirect on the grounds that the other options are the former name of a no-longer existent radio station and part of the code of another small radio station that doesn't actually have its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other option would be moving this to dispute resolution but since it's already gotten started it seems like just procedural hassle. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.

KnowledgeFlow Cybersafety Foundation

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see evidence that the organization would pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about the organization. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources, such as its own self-published content about itself, the self-published websites of partner organizations and directory entries, that are not support for notability -- and meanwhile, the very few GNG-worthy media hits here just glancingly namecheck the organization's founder as a provider of a short soundbite in an article about something else, which is not about this organization and thus does not support its notability.
We're looking for reliable sources (not just any web page that exists) in which this organization is the subject of the coverage (not just a name that happens to get mentioned within coverage about something else), but none of the sources here footnotes here meet that standard at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources and references do exist.

Here are two more:

Cyber Security and Privacy: Key Principles and Tools for Older Adults - Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario (eapon.ca)

https://etalentcanada.ca/for-educators/programs/ictc-knowledge-exchange-hub Emmajp377 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable sources, not just any web page you can find with the organization's name in it. Reliable sources means journalist-written media coverage and/or books, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources in the article are either non-independent (the organization, a parent organization, someone the organization partners with talking about their partnership) or they quote the organization on something. No source given appears to describe it other than one giving a one-sentence statement not saying much more than that it's a cybersecurity organization. Did a search to see if I could find any independent sources that discuss it in at least a couple paragraphs, but couldn't find anything, other than press releases. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bamlet Smallman

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

~~A successful but nonnotable businessman --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn, after article expansion. --Altenmann >talk 01:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ireland, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the Dictionary of Canadian Biography is Canada's "standard national biographical dictionary", as expected by WP:ANYBIO, then the subject is "likely to be notable" (although not definitively/automatically notable) under that guideline. Guliolopez (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, an entry into such book is an argument, and I did write "successful", didn't I? nothing in the article indicates why he is better than tens of thousands of other minor retail store owners. But I may be mistaken in my opinion. --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Plenty of coverage in Canadian sources, [3], [4], [5] and he has a plaque in London [6], but he's more notable as a local person than anything national... I don't know, he opened a store in London an was well known, but is that enough for a wiki article? Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 31 August 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.

Namumula

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. HueMan1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(article creator) Keep: There are significant sources of this article that covers of this subject: Billboard Philippines and ABS-CBN News, ~~Although~~ Although, ~~i cite the social media of Maki (Maki's post on Instagram about his new song) but I supported the social media post with with reliable sources just I mentioned earlier and~~ there is a stub-article to expand the article.

Also, Namumula is set to release on Friday (August 30, 2024), I don't think this is a WP:TOOSOON, the days are numbered until the song is released. Royiswariii (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Royuswari. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It definitely fails WP:NSONG, a song not yet officially released could not be significantly covered by media, the existing “coverages” are only marketing maneuvers. WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTNEWS. Nihonjinatny (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources indicated by Royiswariii are reliable; they're more than just an announcement since they talk about the song. I also found a few more sources which talk about the song: [7], [8] and [9]. Since the song is slated to be released tomorrow, we'll expect some more sources about it. Nonetheless, the article is good enough to meet WP:NSONG. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: The song was released today. Tho I agree the sourcing for the cast needs to be revised for primary sources reasons. Borgenland (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as it already met NSONG and has enough reliable sources. 139.135.241.99 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, this song has been released today, does this change the situation regarding the sourcing for this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Hi! I'm the creator of the Namumula article. The song was released yesterday, and I've added some new sources to the article. Other users have also helped me further expand it. Royiswariii (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]

Keep: With the sources above and this in Billboard and this in ABS-CBN (after today's release), it meets NSONG and probably did before anyways. Looks like it is likely to chart high according to the Billboard article. C F A 💬 03:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song meets NSONG criteria and likely did so prior to this discussion. The sources, such as ABS-CBN and Billboard, are reliable and provide sufficient depth. Indo360 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination)

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

I propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have applied {{subst:afd2}} to this nomination, which did not previously have the full AfD formatting. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had a No.1 hit album and other hits on Billboards Top Christian Albums chart and also has coverage in album reviews on reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythmns. Also this is significant coverage with a byeline here, and also here. The article can be rewritten or shortened but AfD is not for clean-up purposes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Atlantic306, I am not against keeping the article and you may be right about the non-necessity of this Afd, I could not find where I could make this type of request. But in the current state the article should be put back in draft and be republished later when a sorting of sources will be done because the article is hardly clear in the current state SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although it happens articles older than 6 months are not supposed to be moved to draft so if it is kept it needs to be fixed while in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article is a mess. Far, far too many citations to sources that don't help with notability, which makes assessing it very difficult. I have gone through every single reference and found exactly one that in my opinion shows notability: Soultracks bio, which looks like an independent and in-depth biography. Doing a search, I have found: Hot Hits book, a little snippet; Charisma and Christian Life, a frustratingly obscured piece that looks to be mostly about an album but I can't be sure. The second source Atlantic306 has noted is an interview, which cannot contribute to notability (sorry).

In short, based on the sources I could find, delete. It feels like there should be enough RS somewhere out there, but they're not in the article and I can't find enough to say keep. Atlantic306, do you have access to any offline sources that are pushing you towards keep? He seems like he ought to be notable...maybe some of his albums are notable and we could redirect? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have access to any offline sources but there are quite a few book results in a google search which I cant assess unfortunately as either its a small snippet given or none at all. Reviews of his music do count towards notability so I would include the reviews on CrossRythmns and on AllMusic (the paragraph ones, not the single sentence ones), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SparklingBlueMoon, why is this AFD called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination) when there has been no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) nor a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson? Why is this the 2nd nomination? Was there a previous AFD under a different page title? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz, when I tried to make the nomination manually a message told me that there had already been a result before but it is not impossible that it was an error. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Varre

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR (with only one significant role in a notable film). The available sources are all tabloid coverage under WP:SBST and/or of questionable reliability under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Repeatedly recreated by UPE/COI editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have more than one significant role in notable productions. Significant does not mean "lead" role only. Did you have his role in Evvarikee Cheppoddu in mind? His role in Badrinath could be considered significant too; and at least a couple of other roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NACTOR. Just go to Baahubali 2: The Conclusion and ctrl-f his character Sethupathi. He has played negative roles (in films such as Badrinath) which may have garnered more recognition than Evvarikee Cheppoddu.[10] DareshMohan (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per DareshMohan. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. The subject's whole career is from unreliable source 123Telugu.com. If you take out everything from the career that is solely from unreliable source, nothing is left. 2 other unreliable sources are Indiaglitz and idlebrain. TimesofIndia source WP:NEWSORGINDIA is also just an interview for WP:PROMO of upcoming film. Fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject's career to consider a standalone notable page but also opting for draftify if the page can be improved with significant coverage with reliable secondary independent sources. Page also fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page was created by Mr Nerd 96, who is blocked for "Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use, ignored COI disclosure requests and continued editing NSM Public School, Vijayawada, in addition to potentially UPE-edits at Bandi Saroj Kumar, Rakesh Varre." RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am also okay with a redirect since a lot of sources point to Evvarikee Cheppoddu, if all sources are WP:PROMO. All information on the page that is considered non-neutral should be made neutral. DareshMohan (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again, hopefully to find a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources currently cited could be called significant coverages, nothing really significant has happened to the person. Please see WP:NOTPROMO. In case the person would one day has enough notability, I don't oppose moving the article to userspace for now. Nihonjinatny (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjinatny, why would this article be moved to User space rather than Draft space? No one has asked for it to be userfied and the article creator is blocked. I'm just surprised at your suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the lists aren't notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Other problems exist: Verifiability varies, but many of these are poorly referenced. Almost all events cataloged are not independently notable. The lists don't have clear inclusion criteria -- "entertainment events" doesn't specifically exclude or include sporting events, for example. While the lists are mostly music performances, other performances are ignored. mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same basis:

-- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonencyclopedic. WIkipedia not catalog. --Altenmann >talk 17:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These need to be individually nominated (and some were already kept once or twice before individually); some events are naturally excluded because they're not meant for public attendance (for instance, shareholder meetings or private religious rallies) or don't meet our criteria plain and simple (made for TV events or an obvious industry plant where those in the crowd are paid to be there and fill seats or all get free tickets). As always with these >5 article nominations I just don't see a bulk nom as a good way to filter through GNG/N. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the talk page for all of these, and the only ones that had prior AFD results were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers who have performed at the Mall of Asia, which closed as keep (dubiously), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainment events at Perth Arena, which closed as no consensus, neither of which had a second nomination, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. In any case, dumping these all down at once as separate nominations will not produce any more meaningful results than bundling them together, so this just isn't a good argument. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit confusing as "List of entertainers" was nominated under a different name. And I see the "Perth Arena" does have a previous nomination, but my first-time nomination links all work, leading here. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them together because the concerns about failing WP:NOTDB and WP:NLIST and having weak inclusion criteria apply to all of the topics. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against policy and guidelines: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. None of the lists have notability as a class. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The variety of venues makes it impossible to vote here imv. And if i was to vote, I would argue most of these lists are about notable topics as a set and might meet WP:SPLITLIST (and vote Keep all). However, the nominator is in my opinion totally right regarding the fact that certain of these lists would need a better definition of their respective scope, and more sources. But that can be discussed on talk pages.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "imv"? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In my view" Geschichte (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, any complaints about the bundled nomination are nonsense. These are all extremely similar, and dumping 30 listings at once isn't going to be any better in terms of coverage or participation. If (and that's a big if) anyone thinks that any of these lists are sufficiently unique enough of a case to warrant an individual nomination, they can always explain why, and nomination can be updated to have any like that separate.
And second, Wikipedia is not a database of concert (or "entertainment" even) performances. Some of these are wildly unsourced, and for those that do have sources, they tend to be primary to the venue, or just some local news coverage that yes, an aging Def Leppard played here, but no one cared enough to show up. That doesn't pass the smell test for NLIST, as especially evidenced by the vague inclusion criteria. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep these need to be considered individually, Bundling them, while simpler for the person nominating, makes it very difficult for those assessing each articles individual value. While I can evaluate the worth of some venues, I can not evaluate all venues. I would also challenge any of you who a suggesting a sweeping delete of all to prove, on the basis of each particular venue named, that that particular venues list should be deleted. Some may be more appropriately merged into the venues article rather than deleted. The bundled nomination makes no sense in this instance. NealeWellington (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained immediately above, having 30 individual nominations dumped at once isn't going to make a bit of difference in terms of ease of evaluation, and will probably only serve to fragment discussion of this general type of article. And like I also explained, if you think there are any that deserve to get pulled out because they're sufficiently different, you can always just say so, and I doubt anyone would throw up much of a fuss about it. And it's not anyone's job to "prove" that an article should get deleted, an impossible task anyway. People have explained why they think these should be deleted, and just asking for more bureaucratic process without actually demonstrating how it might help just comes across as stonewalling. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A proceedural keep vote might be acceptable if one could show a flaw in the rationale being applied to all the nominations. That is, if one cited reliable sources showing a couple (just two or three) satisfied WP:NLIST, then it would be quite reasonable to argue that the mass nominaton raised questions about appropriate levels of WP:BEFORE and would make a stronger case for invididual nominations. But to date, not a single RS has been shown that satisfies NLIST for a single venue. These appear nothing more than directory listings and as such are against policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "procedural keep vote"? I don't think I've ever heard of it before, and there are two such votes here now. Where can I read about the vote meanings used in AfD? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas a procedual keep is when the nomination for deletion contains errors, see WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. Worth noting, it's a different from a speedy keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've heard of a procedural closure before, but never a "procedural keep". To me, they seem quite different: "keep" implies that a decision to keep was made, dismissing the AfD with prejudice ... when really that isn't the intent. (Or is it?) -- mikeblas (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All procedural closes will by definition be keeps in that specific instance (but not necessarily in general); in contrast "procedural deletes" are covered by WP:CSD. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an AfD is closed keep, there's the implication that it shouldn't be re-nominated again until some time has passed. Is that also true for a "procedural keep" closure? I think that's so, and that's why I identify a difference between "procedural close" and "procedural keep". -- mikeblas (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing obliges you to evaluate the worth (do you mean "notability"?) of any venues. Instead, we're evaluating WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDB which applies to all of these articles: are the performances notable, as a group? I think they're not, and I think that applies uniformly. I don't appreciate the implication of laziness. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with bundling these articles together is there is no opportunity to address an individual article over the bundle of articles. If for instance I can establish notability for one article, then it will be deleted because the other articles are not notable or if one article is better merged with a corresponding article about the particular venue then the same problem applies. That is what I have an objection to/problem with. I accept there a are are instances where bundling is appropriate, but I don't think this is one of them. Sorry to ruffle your feathers Mike - it wasn't my intention. Please accept my apology, but my overall objection still stands. NealeWellington (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology. Is Wikipeidia process really so inflexible that individual exceptions can't be filtered from a bulk nomination without closing the bulk nomination and re-nominating the articles discretely? Seems sad, if so, that such a process stands in the way of doing the right thing. Not to be obstinate, but I don't know what individual nominations would change. If I re-nominated each article, I'd explain the same thing again and again: there's no demonstration of notability of the group of performances, and that doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST; plus, there are concerns about WP:NOTDB. How would that be meaningfully different for each? -- mikeblas (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NealeWellington Nothing in the process suggests one (or more than one) cannot be found notable. I'd certainly support a relisting individually if a couple could be found to satisfy NLIST...but no one seems to be able to identify RS for a single one. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting discussion for another week as it is not realistic to ask participants to evaluate 28 articles over 7 days and because discussion is still ongoing in this discussion. To answer a couple of questions, I've seen bundled nominations closed as Procedural Keeps and the next day, each article has been nominated individually so a nominator doesn't have to wait months for a follow-up. Secondly, I've seen individual articles removed from bundled nominations so it is worth the time to argue to Keep individual articles if you think that notability can be established. I realize that a bundled nomination can seem overwhelming to editors that are inclusionists but the Delete closure is not a done deal. Make your case, for one or two articles or for them all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grasslands Entertainment

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Could only find trivial mentions. C F A 💬 00:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Canada. C F A 💬 00:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Americas

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

This is basically a directory article again, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, we have categories for this. We don't need list article for this. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, South America, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa

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

What wikipedia is not, is not a WP:NOTADIRECTORY which this article clearly is. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, Africa, and Middle East. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, like I replied in the other article, Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. It still violates NOTADIRECTORY. Govvy (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.

[1]