Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 02	November 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Rim Kwang-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only "references" in the articles are passing mentions in a squad list "X, Y, Z ... and him were selected for the team" - not meeting the WP:SIGCOV requirement of WP:BIO, and inclusion in automated soccer player databases with limited biographical information (name, age, matches played). Couldn't find much more than this with searches both in English and Korean. Molecular Pilot 00:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. - Lâm (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kero

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

I really sympathise with the topic of the article, but there is no coverage about him beyond him being stranded in Juba, which is mentioned in one source (not even crossing into WP:BLP1E territory). Nothing to meet WP:N or WP:SINGER at all! FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United Nations Mission in South Sudan thought he is notable enough to make a video about him for International Day of Peace 2020 - see https://media.un.org/avlibrary/en/asset/d255/d2558965. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:SINGER for criteria for notability for singers,e.g., Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Your link does not establish any of that. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. It seems to me that the UN link along with the one already in the article (which, incidentally, also has a follow up here) meet those requirements exactly. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sudan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Dorsetonian. Definitely borderline. Noah ^💬 02:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibhasthali

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

Non notable school, Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent, reliable sources establishing notability, as it primarily consists of promotional content about the institution without substantial coverage in reputable secondary sources. --Moarnighar (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating since the last discussion didn't attract much participation. There is no significant coverage at all of the subject. No SNGs apply. Notability is not inherited from family members. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Latter Day Saints, and Arizona. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he’s an heir presumptive to a sect of a sect, with heresies within heresies. The coverage is speculative at best. We are not a place for propaganda. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to him being mentioned in numerous News articles from the likes of Fox News, The Salt Lake Tribune. BBC News etc. as being the current leader of a controversial church/cult. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented this last time but have yet to provide any examples of significant coverage about the subject. Being mentioned in numerous News articles (emphasis mine) does not indicate notability. C F A 💬 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints#Reconsolidation efforts since 2022 where he's mentioned. WP:ANYBIO not satisfied. Nothing substantial about the subject found in sources - only mentions, which taken together do not constitute sufficient coverage for WP:BASIC. Rupples (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Mali relations

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

The article is based on entirely primary sources. Fails GNG. Curiously the article says sources retrieved in Sept 2024 and March 2022 when the article was just created. This source is not indepth and this one is a small 1 line mention of Mali. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, the only GNG-qualifying sources I could find online had to do with Ireland's peacekeeping mission in Mali. Noah ^💬 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There do not appear to be sources (independent, secondary, non-trivial) that would establish notability. Yilloslime (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an ATD, possible redirect to European Union Training Mission in Mali, which included deployment of the Irish Army. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that redirect; not opposed to keep, though, given existing coverage on the news about this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relations are more broad than the European Union Training Mission in Mali, so oppose redirect. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Keep, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which third party coverage meets GNG for this subject? LibStar (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Irish Regiment 'on standby' for Mali mission BBC (4 February 2013), What are Ireland's Army Ranger Wing doing in Mali? RTE (25 February 2020), Ireland will continue on controversial Mali mission but with reduced troop commitment (Irish Times 22 November 2022), Wagner Group disinformation endangering Irish troops in Mali, researchers warn (Irish Times 12 July 2023). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jostin Francis

AfDs for this article:

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

Recommending this article for deletion. The person has no particular wiki worthy notability. He is a psychiatrist.

The page mentions that - "Known for Various presentations public speeches and debates done for Kerala Freethinkers Forum and many other science groups of Kerala". This isn't something that qualifies as notability. Freethinkers itself isn't particularly notable on its own. And being a member of it isn't any remarkable achievement.

And has received an award named Media Special Appreciation Award' which is of no particular value whatsoever. Every professional would  have received some form of award in their career.

The person was in news for trying to abuse a female patient https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/02/08/psychiatrist-wayanad-medical-college-student-sexual-abuse-suspended.html

Also see the External Links section of the wiki page. They link to his FB page, Business Contact page and Personal blog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostin_Francis#External_links

This article doesn't belong in wiki. This definitely has the look of a self promo article.

Bobgali (talk) 14:42, 28 October 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E for the sex scandal. No other notability. This BLP appears to be an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "widely acknowledged" writings have left no trace in GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Disruptive editing by the highly suspicious account who did not properly filled the nomination.(non-admin closure) Moarnighar (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Englishdom (online school)

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

Hey. This page is direct advertising. That violates policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andeswhams (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 October 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 4 November 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.

Battles of Belonia Bulge

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

The "Battles of Belonia Bulge" article has faced multiple issues since May, as it does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Specifically, the article provides insufficient Doomguy427 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'Mario Legend

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and definitely WP:GNG. Mentions that verify his work but no significant coverage. Most references are coming from a single publication in a WP:BEFORE search which is a tabloid without any mention of editorial oversight. CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. CNMall41 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007

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

There are no secondary sources on the for this page. There are no secondary sources on the specific subject of this page, as far as I can see. There is a page on Legislative Competence Order, which I think would provide a good redirect destination. SqrtLog (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I see no reason to remove it? There is useful content here. I will go look for some secondary sourcing and coverage, but as an article it sticks very closely to the original LCO. Nothing is lost by leaving it. Flatthew (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have been reading about the order. It appears it essentially governed Conduct in National Assembly elections between 2007 and 2020. That is quite clearly significant enough to be retained. I do not know how whoever wrote this page managed to downplay it's significance as substantially as they did, but I'm working on resolving that now. Flatthew (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order: Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, this should be covered in the Legislative Competence Order article, which is currently a stub. Each new LCO doesn't need its own article, and this can be covered with due weight in the target article. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If @Flatthew can show that this is independently notable and there's so much information that a separate article is needed, I'll change my !vote, but I couldn't find all that much in-depth coverage about the 2007 order in particular. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I can't find much beyond mention of how it has been amended since. I think it's clear it has to be merged with something if it is to be retained. I think the issue is the things it would have to be merged with don't seem to have their own distinct articles either. I think it would be a shame for it to disappear, which is essentially what merging into the LCO page seems to do, given they just go into a table with no information about each order. Functionally merging is deletion here, but that might have to be the way. Flatthew (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be merged to the table; new sections can be added for each sorta notable Order in the LCO article. The LCO article also needs a general overview/history section. If you're interested, I encourage you to work on that article; it can be brought up to much better quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has been on my list for a while to have a crack at that one, this would be a good push for it. Yeah, seems like the way to do it. Flatthew (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Welsh law, but if you end up needing a second set of eyes, feel free to ping me on LCO article talk voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what content here would make another article more informative or is otherwise notable enough for inclusion - it seems the order's changes are almost entirely making it consistent with or enabling changes made elsewhere. I think it would be sufficient to include the order in the LCO list (and a redirect would then be appropriate), but doesn't need its own section there. There may be merit to an article on the original 1999 LCO or the 2003 version (if it changed anything major), but I don't think they'd use anything substantial from here. I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the conduct of Welsh elections or Welsh politics generally but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that whether a returning officer for an election needs to reside in the constituency for which they are responsible isn't more of a hot button issue there than is suggested by the dearth of secondary sources. Chaste Krassley (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order (or any other appropriate article) per voorts. I don't find sufficient information for it to be a standalone article, but it could be kept nonetheless in a seperate article. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Coimbra

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

We have here a good example of WP:BLP1E, a person whose purported notability is tied to a single event, i.e. a single beauty pageant event. There are three sources which are difficult to evaluate as a non-Portuguese reader; however, they note a) the pageant win and b) a couple of appearances at charity events in support of the pageant, including a (possibly public??) breast exam. This is way too thin to support the general notability guideline, and there are no SNGs that could apply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauriela Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)
Zuleica Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (two sources, one of which appears to be a nonexistent Facebook page)
Jurema Ferraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)

I have bundled the above articles for the same reason, except that they have even less sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: The Opais link you gave here is already in the article, and I dealt with its thinness in the deletion nomination. The embassy link provides just three sentences on the pageant, one of which is about the judges and not the subject of this bio. The South African gives us a bulleted list of stuff in the pageant handout like birth place and star sign, but nothing of substance for a biography – certainly nothing that could be used to expand the article. The Forbes article says very little at all, but notes she has an afro, a red swimsuit, and an unnamed "social project", but nothing really about the person. AngoRussia, a single sentence mentioning birthplace, area of study, and country of residence, nothing more. These, like the original sources, are shallow and/or in-passing and tied to the single event, which just underscores this is a BLP1E situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An award is not an event, that passes, it’s an honour, that remains, and BLP1E does not apply imv. The guideline does not mention awards, at least, unless I missed it, whereas ANYBIO does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tend to agree with the analysis above. The South African is a minimal source, if we had more, we could use it. But it's just not enough. The rest are trivial mentions or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ANYBIO might apply as she received a significant award; if other users disagree redirect to Miss_Angola#Titleholders -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the fact this was a bundled Afd....my !vote was originally about Lauriela Martins. Coverage in Pt exists about her. Ana Coimbra: see above, now. Other: idem. So keep all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists in various languages. See GBooks please. Mildly notable awards and nomination. Extremely notable cast and director. A redirect to the latter is totally warranted. Willing to improve this later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check Google Books: I'm not getting WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film, I'm just getting glancing namechecks of its existence in filmographies and directories.

An award only supports a film's notability to the extent that said award can be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage that treats the award presentation as news. An award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award only supports notability if it's referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media reportage, and does not support notability if it's either unreferenced, or referenced solely to primary source content self-published by a directly affiliated entity (such as either the film festival's own website or the film's own marketing materials). But the awards here are all completely unsourced, and my BEFORE searches did not find any GNG-worthy referencing that could be added to support the award claims.

"Nominations" also have to be properly supported by GNG-worthy media coverage, because that's highly prone to promotional manipulation. I see this happen all the time with the Toronto International Film Festival, for example: films frequently try to make the notability claim that they had been "nominees" for the People's Choice Award, but that's not an award that actually has "nominees" — every feature film in the festival program is automatically eligible for People's Choice by simple virtue of being present in the festival program at all, so being eligible for that award is not a meaningful or notability-bolstering distinction. There are obviously some exceptions, such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes or TIFF's Platform Prize, where the film played in a special competitive program that was curated to compete for a special prize that most other films at the festival weren't in contention for — for awards like that, "nomination" is a valid notability claim, but for a regular non-competitive "every film at the festival was automatically eligible for consideration" award, "nomination" is not a distinction, so an award nomination requires GNG-worthy sourcing to demonstrate that the award was a special competitive program with a curated shortlist of nominees, and not just an "every film in the program was automatically eligible for consideration" award.

Neither the notability of cast members nor the notability of the director constitute inclusion freebies that exempt a film from having to pass GNG just because there are notable people being wikilinked in the body text, either. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now sufficiently well-"GNG-worthy"-sourced to show the featurette meets NFILM ("The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career, for example") and GNG (has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) and that there's no apparent reason for deletion. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desserts (film)

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film. As always, films are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to be reliably sourced as passing certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- however, the only claim of notability even attempted here is that Ewan McGregor was in it, but films do not inherit notability from their cast members, so having a famous actor in it does not exempt a film from having to pass WP:GNG in and of itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British media coverage from the 1990s can find better sourcing than I've been able to locate on the Google, but even Ewan McGregor can't magically exempt short films from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has a BEFORE been performed?? No. " His first short film, Desserts, won the Silver Bear at the 1999 Berlin Film Festival." (https://www.torinofilmfest.org/en/17-torino-film-festival/film/desserts/684/) Plus multiple results on GBooks. Unsourced articles need sources not deletion. Willing to improve this later. (https://www.sansebastianhorrorfestival.eus/1999/ing/desserts.htm http://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/desserts for verification) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a BEFORE most certainly was performed.

Secondly, the source for any film award win has to be journalistic reportage about the award presentation in media, not film festival catalogues. An award has to itself be notable (i.e. pass WP:GNG) before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so the award has to be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to constitute a notability claim, and a film cannot be notable for winning an award that you have to source to promotional content on the self-published website of a film festival in lieu of proper media coverage about said award.

Thirdly, the sourcing for thing else about the film also has to be coverage about the film in media, not the self-published catalogues of film festivals or directory entries. Films always have to be shown to pass WP:GNG regardless of what notability claims are attempted, no notability claim is ever so "inherently" notable as to exempt a film from having to be referenced to GNG-worthy sourcing, and film festival catalogues and directory entries are not GNG-worthy sourcing. GNG requires journalistic coverage about the film in media, not indiscriminate-inclusion directory entries and directly affiliated promotional sources. Bearcat (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! So you performed a BEFORE but you failed to mention the short had WON a Silver Bear in your not-so-short rationale? (:D) Sure. You probably forgot that tiny detail. But I'll assume good faith. As for the rest, no. Coverage in books (see page, where one of the sources for the award is a BOOK: can you check it again -since you probably had seen it in your BEFORE?-) and any reliable source are OK for verification. The film has won a notable award at one the most prestigious film festivals in the history of cinema, it can therefore be considered notable. And that is just one reason to keep it. Also, self-published is generally not used with the meaning you seem to think it has; the links are to OFFICIAL websites of notable film festvals, they cannot be described as "self-published catalogues". I don't know what "sourcing for thing else" means. Anything? Sure. Again, not only "media" coverage counts. Just read the guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be interesting to compare the reply to my !vote, by the nominator, with that comment by the same user, at another AfD (where they were in favour of retaining the page....) it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)} (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cluer) Do different standards apply to BLPs of (Canadian) filmmakers? Sourced nominations/collective wins at certainly notable Canadian awards imply "inherent notability" (emphasis not mine) in certain cases but films winning extremely notable awards at international festivals, although sourced with various references, should not be considered notable? -despite W:NFILM stating they can be considered notable if they win a major award-. Food for thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:BEFORE only requires me to scan the results of a search to determine whether there are reliable and WP:GNG-worthy sources available in the pool, and does not require me to manually investigate each link to determine whether there's a hidden potential notability claim — at the time of nomination, the article did not say that there were any awards involved, so it is not my responsibility to have discovered that. BEFORE only requires me to determine whether reliable or GNG-worthy sources are available to salvage the article with, and does not require me to do the salvaging myself.

Secondly, you know what else isn't GNG-worthy support for notability either? Ebooks self-published by their own writers through print-on-demand houses.

And there's no conflict between what I'm saying here and what I said at Sebastian Cluer, either: the difference hinges on reliable sourcing. Sebastian Cluer's Canadian Screen Award nominations and wins were properly sourced to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that reported the CSA nominees and winners as news, which means I applied the same standards to both topics and said absolutely nothing different there than here. The argument there wasn't that he was exempted from having to have any sourcing because of the award claims, the argument was about whether or not we needed to also find biographical sourcing about him in addition to the properly sourced award claims, which isn't the same thing at all.

By far the majority of winners of the Silver Bear for Best Short Film do not have Wikipedia articles, as can be seen by simply looking at that article. It's not that they can't have articles, obviously, but properly sourcing articles about short films is frequently harder than properly sourcing articles about feature films is, and the films are not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because there's an award involved — even a film with an award-related notability claim still has to be properly sourced. So most of the films in that list don't have articles, because it's a lot harder to find GNG-worthy sourcing that properly supports articles about short films. And again, that's not different from Sebastian Cluer at all, as his award-related notability claim was properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who wrote "The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)." but the Silver Bear win for the present short is now sourced with at least 4 reliable sources. Properly sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not substantially edit your comments once they have been replied to. It can be at best very confusing. Please kindly remove the added text and insert it below if you wish, per Wikipedia:REDACTED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Waters Willard

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Julia as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Golapganj

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

Non notable article about Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor position (don't be confused with city corporation mayor). In the past we have deleted many mayoral articles elected to this position e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel) as the position isn't considered automatically notable per WP:NPOL. There are some refs on the article but it's completely unrelated. Fails WP:GNG.

Also the article is very short, there is no need for a separate article. (It can be merged with Golapganj Municipality.) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:NPOL there is nothing written like that and page like Mayor of Sylhet exist . And City corporation is also the same thing just it's the main municipal org. And Mayor of Golapganj has been featured on several notable news like The Business Standard etc. So I think there no legitimate reason to delete the page. Therealbey (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet is a major Bangladeshi city, so it makes sense that an article about the mayor of Sylhet exists. Whereas according to the infobox, Golapganj has a population of around 40,000. I don't know about any Bengali sources but in English at least, the only thing I can find is one incident, which is not enough for its own page.

And WP:NPOL does say that in the first bullet point, being the mayor of a city isn't at the international, national or state/province level, therefore there is no notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic notability, rather. Procyon117 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All though the municipal corporation is small in population 40,000 but it has its under the Upazila and in Upazila population is 3,16,149 and whole upazila count's the mayor as whole upazila mayor. Mayor was also featured in the daily star , business standard , daily observer In The financial Express . Therealbey (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about. Upazila (3rd level administrative division) is administered by Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) and not by mayor. Municipalities (aka Pourosova) are one of lower level (4th level) administrative areas in Bangladesh, as i said, Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor position isn't considered automatically notable per WP:NPOL. You have to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and talks about this Golapganj Mayor position. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check I have given those sources above ↑ Therealbey (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Sunbury earthquake

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

While it was the strongest in the immediate area within the last 120 years, it had limited effects like buckled roads and cracked plaster, so I think this one probably fails WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Australia. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:N(EQ) states that notable earthquakes should garner significant media coverage, which this one did (even non-Australian media outlets such as CNN reported on it) and it was mentioned in news reports into 2024 (see here). WP:N(EQ) also states, however, that shaking of intensity VII or greater is generally necessary for notability, which this earthquake did not reach, although in my view notability should not be defined by the magnitude or intensity. Personally, I would keep this article, but I would understand totally if it is deleted. Redtree21 (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Waters Tillman

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Maxine as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chapman (murderer)

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

The crime received some contemporaneous news coverage but I don't think it meets the lasting significance standard of WP:NEVENT. gnu 57 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. gnu 57 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Haven't done too deep of a dive yet, but searching on Google books there does seem to be coverage from reliable sources continuing with sigcov, using it as a sort of case study of internet crime. Should probably be renamed Murder of Ashleigh Hall though, since I don't see a particular reason to focus on the perp in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. But rename to Murder of Ashleigh Hall. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more comments about the sources found in the Google search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Multiple coverage by books and media. I don't have particular opinions on renaming. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's clearly a notable topic in here, whether it's framed around the crime, the perpetrator, or the victim. There's a half-page on p. 147 of this book, almost the entire p. 198 of this book, an entire chapter (11. "The Facebook Murder", comprising 10-12 pages starting p. 125) of this book, and plenty more in-depth lasting secondary coverage available from searching on Google Books and Google Scholar. Left guide (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Left guide and the existence of multiple independent reliable secondary sources, showing significant coverage. A move can be discussed after closure of this AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerónimo Lluberas

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

There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Medicine. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Runkle

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

Research shows Milo helped launch a fund called Joyful Ventures to invest in food sustainable companies and co-founded non-profit Mercy for Animals. The mainstream news coverage where his name appears are about the fund launch (and then very little else), and he is only mentioned as one of the cofounders, and there doesn’t seem to be mainstream coverage of Mercy for Animals in connection with him (or in general really). Not clear he has enough mainstream coverage to hit the notability bar. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would a Move to Joyful Ventures be a possibility worth considering? I see some references, some are WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. [1] Andre🚐 22:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Zhabov

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

I just don't see any trace of notability for this Bulgarian second-tier footballer. Not now and not in the short term, making draftification undesirable in my opinion. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam Rabel

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

Non notable Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor. The article has some refs, but all of them are basically interview masquerading as article, WP:PRIMARY. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much! He isn't a former mayor but also politician featured in lot of Bigg press News. He was the Mayor of Golapganj which was indeed featured in various bigg news like The Business Standard and The daily star although Aminul Islam Rabel was not featured primarily but as Mayor of Golapgonj. And first finish the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Golapganj Therealbey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cay

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

No indication of importance. No good sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bahamas and Islands. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ness

AfDs for this article:

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

per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles, Apart from that it does not comply with WP:SINGER and sources not WP:RS. Pitille02 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure a WP:BEFORE was done. Interestingly, this guy is known for his recent criminal arrest and conviction (see coverage in Panama America, En Segundos, Critica and Telemetro), but that's not in the article. Separately from the criminal activity, there is WP:SIGCOV of his reggae career in Panama America, Telemetro (which notes a major award he received from the Panamanian Ministry of Culture and Critica. So we have a WP:GNG pass. Article definitely needs cleanup and updating, but WP:DINC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base Line Cay

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

No clear notability. No reliable sources, and none exist. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bahamas and Islands. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cave Cay

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

No reliable sources, and a before couldn't find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean, Bahamas, and Islands. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Keller_(designer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Keller (designer)

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

The article reads like a CV; was anonymously contributed by the same IP address in both English and German, the languages of spoken by the person the article is about; and doesn't seem to pass the notability test. Themrbeaumont (talk) 21:05, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Germany, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sourcing provded for claims made. See source assessment table. I am not finding anything else online. Moved laundry list of awards and exhibitions claims off main space --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.psfk.com/2013/09/frankfurt-auto-show-displays.html		?	link to empty dashboard	✘ No
https://retaildesignblog.net/2013/01/02/vodafone-flagship-store-by-kms-blackspace-cologne/			retail design blog	✘ No
https://en.red-dot.org/3340.html	?	?	? Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20111012164438/http://www.audi.com/com/brand/en/experience/audi_forums0/audi_forum_ingolstadt/museum_mobile.html			no mention of Michael Keller	✘ No
http://www.contractdesign.com/contract/design/features/Interiors-Awards-201-4386.shtml	?	?	? 404 Not Found	? Unknown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbLRclxpA_s			YouTube video Space	✘ 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}}.

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

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

This list has been a magnet for original research and edit warring for years. The basic problem is that we don't have good sources that treat the subject as a cohesive set, because while the "X is the oldest city in Y" is an attention-grabbing headline, it's not really a topic of serious scholarly interest. Instead, the list has been cobbled together from hundreds of sources that make claims about the age of individual cities. This is problematic because these sources don't have a consistent definition of—and rarely even discuss—what counts as a "city" or what it means to be "continuously inhabited". Non-academic sources also routinely repeat dubious dates without checking where they come from or confuse e.g. a prehistoric camp site being found within or adjacent to a village with that village being "10,000 years old", especially where there's a nationalistic angle (i.e. our oldest city is oldest than our neighbours).

I suggest deletion because I don't think this list is salvageable by changing the scope or sourcing requirements and in general we have moved on from these SYNTHy collections that were common in the early days. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: nominator makes a good case, nothing much to add. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I accept the nominator's points about the drawbacks of this list, but I do think a list of oldest cities is a reasonable thing for WP to provide. While people certainly do add OR to this article (constantly), that OR is removed when the additions cannot be sourced. Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today. The fact that bad sources also exist is no grounds for refusing to cover a topic. As for definitions of terms, "city" can't really be a problem, or we wouldn't have any lists of cities, while edge cases for "continuously inhabited" can be dealt with using the "notes" section of the list.

It certainly is a lot of work to maintain this list in the face of frequent additions of inappropriate content, but that isn't a justification for deletion. Furius (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today – certainly, but these sources are not helpful, because of the consistency problems mentioned above. The definition of a city might not be an issue in lists of modern cities but in the past it is a lot hardy to define and the frequent subject of debate.[2] What we need are reliable sources that list and discuss "oldest cities" specifically per WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis that an encyclopedia should contain this kind of information. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Furius, and I can't help but feel that many of the edit warring and original research problems would disappear if the content actually matched the title. At the moment the content is for List of oldest continuously inhabited cities by region. Why does this list contain 55 cities for North America? Clearly should be organised chronologically first. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this is a worthwhile topic for an encyclopedia. I agree with Airship about the layout of the page being problematic. CarlStrokes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for, oddly enough, the very reason you think it should be deleted. Because you need to cobble together dozens and dozens of sources for any comparison, _any_ comparison has strong encyclopedic value, even if imperfect. Even if _deeply_ imperfect. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have five keep !votes but still not a single source that would count towards WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without a consistent approach to (1) what is a city and (2) how continuously inhabited is defined I don't see how this is a viable list. What we are left with is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. I also wonder to what extent the list may be inherently problematic. It omits destroyed settlements and excludes groups which tend to not have permanent settlements, giving a rather colonised view of the world. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In 2007 or 2008, I would’ve made a strong effort to save this, but this is a mess of synthesis. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject passes WP:NLIST since its members are discussed as a group in secondary, reliable sources -- namely National Geographic, ArchDaily, Conde Nast Traveler &c. Individual entries should be appropriately sourced, and I agree with the recommendations above for reorganizing chronologically rather than by continent, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is split between keep and delete. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The encyclopedic value is obvious. Frankly, I don't see how this would be any more problematic than the List of tallest people. Sure, different lists may have different pieces of information, and that may change in the future, but that is just the nature of geographically and historically dispersed information. BD2412 T 19:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many attempts have been made to make sense out of this article for the last few years but all of them have been unsuccessful. The criteria for this list is itself problematic. Nxcrypto Message 03:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to remind participants that we're not debating whether to keep the current content of the page, but whether a list that meets WP:NLIST can be written for this subject. I see some agreement that the list needs to be resorted, and possibly trimmed down significantly. Editors are welcome to do that while the AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Furius, AlessandroTiandelli333, Dclemens1971 et al. Frankly astonishing that such a page is listed for deletion. Finding good sources is not easy? There is edit warring? This has to do with editing, not deletion. Scholarly sources for individual entries can be found (see [3] for the most obvious search). --cyclopia ^speak! 10:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwa Saray Ghar

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

The only information I can find for this cites this article, and there doesn't seem to be any RS for this in an English search or, as far as I can tell, Pashto. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Fresh

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

I can't find any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, not even in spanish

the topic of the article seems not to comply with WP:SINGER, not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to comply with WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 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 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I haven't done a full search yet but this staff written bio on AllMusic here is a reliable source that confirms he has a Gold record and multiple album releases on Sony Music. That passes criteria 3 and 5 of WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it passes criteria 3 and 5, it should be kept. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; verifiably meets WP:NMUSIC per Atlantic306. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Kjetland

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

Low-level college football player (NAIA) with no indication of notability. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and South Dakota. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The cited refs aren't SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. A similar article on one of Kjetland's teammates, Sam Sather, should likely also be deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World's Worst Boardgame

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. No secondary reliable sources, secondary sources seem to be YT WP:USERG. A quick WP:BEFORE on Google doesn't show any media articles of note. Some unsourced statements. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber Music Northwest

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

Fails WP:NORG and it's way too hyper-local to be considered of beyond local relevance for more lenient notability guidelines under NONPROFIT SNG. Graywalls (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: found coverage of a festival of their's at American Record Guide. Mach61 14:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films and TV programs containing corporal punishment scenes

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

This list has indiscriminate selection criteria, listing creative works based on the presence of a single, broadly-defined scene instead of a theme or genre. QuietCicada chirp 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Lists. QuietCicada chirp 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir, may I have another? One of the most ludicrous lists I've ever seen. Let's just delete this blatant NLIST failure/OR magnet. I'm not sure much more needs to be said about this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We are not TV Tropes. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost every show has corporal punishment in some way. Is the article making meaningful commentary out of it? Not really. Delete. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST stand alone fringe topic.— Maile (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below from MrSchimpf are exactly correct: "bad fetish content under the guise of 'education' — Maile (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Revdel and Salt Outside one other article, this is someone's SPA augmented over time to shove bad fetish content under the guise of 'education', with incredibly specific and uncomfortable notes about the punishments given (the notes about a scene in a sitcom, Community, are well above the pale) and several other pieces of children's media detail the punishment given to minors in a certain type of detail that should frankly be removed altogether (whoever added the Our Gang example...what the **** is wrong with you?!), thus the salting. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST and NOTDB, and MrSchimf's comments above. Also, is it starting to snow in here? ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and antisemitism

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

A consensus to merge exists at the talk page, this AfD to confirm that it should be carried out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge While I respect and appreciate the efforts to improve the article and make it more neutral, I don't feel the article has the coherence to exist on its own. I don't feel many/any sources deal with the topic as a whole so as to give it notability so WP:COATRACK is a problem here, to quote the essay An article about some phenomenon might include multiple subsections, each of which is supposedly an example of the article's subject. If there is good sourcing that unifies all of these examples under one general topic, then that can be appropriate. I don't see the good sourcing unifying these examples, so would recommend inclusion in other articles such as Criticism of wikipedia or Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

In addition, the Holocaust Related Bias section, gives extremely extensive coverage to two papers which are actually not about antisemitism, but instead focus on the use of the holocaust by modern wikipedians of different nationalities. This is really interesting, but is not about antisemitism, it is about the way antisemitic atrocities of the past are framed to fit political agendas in Poland, Israel, Ukraine and Russia. Is this really within the scope of an article on antisemitism in wikipedia?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, that essay's idea of needing sources to unify examples doesn't have a basis in policy. It mentions WP:SYNTH, but that applies to statements, not compilations of statements. It also seems like most of Category:Criticisms would fail that essay's standard.

I'll need to look into that Holocaust content, but it sounds like an argument for trimming some content which isn't that central to the article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that in this case we are doing quite a lot of legwork to editorially select what might constitute antisemitism. I really think the whole Israel section doesn't belong for example. The criticism of wikipedia article is quite clear on what should go in it, so we can be fairly safe in adding it, but the title here is not.

The stuff in the two framing articles is mostly unbiased, but it would fit better in the article on Ideological bias in Wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I would support trimming any content that sources do not link to claims of antisemitism. Some of that has already been done but there may be a bit more trimming to do. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify - it clearly meets WP:GNG, but the article is young, its scope is still evolving, there's an open naming discussion, and there are various issues which are being worked on. The proposer and closer of the merge had agreed to allow a bit more time before an AfD. I'd prefer even more time, so draftification might be appropriate. That would avoid sniping the article before it has a chance to develop, while also avoiding unfixed issues in mainspace. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close This is out of process. The move discussion on the page is also out of process. Just close the merge discussion and then let's see where it goes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion was on the wrong page, but I don't think that's enough to throw away a strong consensus and say "do it all again".Boynamedsue (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No the merge discussion is fine. It is the move discussion, started today despite an extant merge discussion, that is out of process. I'll post to AN and see if we can get an admin to close the merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: Articles for Deletion is not for merger discussions. If there is consensus on the talk page, then an uninvolved editor should close the discussion and carry out the merge. C F A 💬 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's admittedly a messy situation, but my request to the closer would be to treat this as a deletion request -
- I argued for a conversion from a merge to AfD, based on the practical effect of the action.
- The merge was performed, but the merger later agreed to undo it and switch to AfD. They planned to file tomorrow, but were preempted with this unusual "merge AfD".
- ProfGray already added a summary in the proposed destination, so the status quo is essentially a parent-child setup. We can't really fit more content there (already borderline WP:TOOBIG), so a merge probably wouldn't result in any actual merging. Effectively we're just deciding on deletion now.
If you or Nyttend have opinions regarding deletion (as if this were a standard AfD), it might be useful to know, in the event that the closer does end up evaluating this as a deletion request. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Judaism, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural background. The proposer closed the Merge discussion on Oct 30th. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer agreed in the edit summary: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday, at 22:38 pm Eastern. Fwiw, the original merge discussion had most comments before Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Nonwithstanding possible rename options which are OK. Andre🚐 22:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already agreement on the talk page that the current title is not even a topic. There is no agreement on an alternative title and no agreement on the article scope, never mind any other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aside from possible orignial research, I believe the article demonstrated enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I have no comment regarding the proposed merge; that should be dealt on its substituent talk page. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. If merging, it should only be parts of the page, not the whole thing. The issue really isn't notability, so much as whether it is encyclopedic as a standalone page. There is way too much WP:SYNTH and some very serious problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK, intersecting with edit warring over the merge. ~~And now, a bot has flagged the page as even having WP:COPYVIO problems.~~ --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The diff the bot flagged was this one (see the CopyPatrol report) because of the quote in the reference, which is valid under fair use. There is no copyright violation. No comment on the other issues. C F A 💬 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The nomination isn't asking for deletion, there's overlap with a merge discussion at the talk page, and nobody here has advocated only deletion. All these factors combine to make a procedural muddle. Wait until the merge discussion is closed, and if there's no consensus for a merge, someone's free to propose deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no need to separate the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standalone per WP:GNG given significant coverage of topic, both in academic and media reliable sources. Please see my full comment in the Merge discussion. ProfGray (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Scream To

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

Too limited in coverage. Out of the sources here, two are announcements (one focused more on the graphic novel with little to say about the soundtrack), two are profiles that only briefly mention this release (one gives a small paragraph and the other just a sentence), and the review from Sputnik which has never given me the most confidence as a source. And having found nothing else, I don't see notability met. I suggest a redirect to Poppy (singer)#2019–2020: I Disagree where the subject is mentioned in prose, with potential to merge and expand it to its own paragraph. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThinBasic

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

Can't find anything to satisfy GNG. The sources I could find with significant coverage are thinBasic's own website, stuff published by Eros Olmi (creator of the language) and Petr Schreiber (major contributor to the language, has his own subdomain of thinbasic.com), and self-published lists of of BASIC dialects. I propose a redirect to List of BASIC dialects#T. Tangentially, this Wikipedia article was created and updated by Olmi and Schreiber. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelle of the Saracens

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

I was quite excited to find this article - and ended up disappointed when I realized that despite its decent size, it does not refer to the subject once beyond the lead section. Of the three cited sources, two do not mention her at all, and the one that does seems to merely list her in an index. I found this book, which says: "Adelle was a physician active in Salerno. All we really know of her is that she was a lecturer at the Salerno Medical School." Indeed this is all the article said 10 years ago when it was created by Aciram, who likely thought that there was more about her somewhere. It seems, however, that nothing beyond these two sentences can be said about Adelle, and so there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose mentioning Adelle in the background section of the article women of Salerno, which is about Salernitan women physicians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Medicine. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing with WP:SIGCOV found. Also per my source assess table below. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Retsö, Jan (4 July 2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia	? Per WP:BRITANNICA, other sources are preferred.	Adelle is never mentioned.	✘ No
Ferraris, Z. A.; Ferraris, V. A. (December 1997). "The women of Salerno: contribution to the origins of surgery from medieval Italy"		Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
Kyle, Sarah R. (2016-08-12). Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua	Held in university libraries	Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science	Held in university libraries	Barely mentions her	✘ 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}}.

Simon Sunatori

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTPROMO Promotional content, contains "puffery" and promotes Magnescribe pen. Wikipedia:Autobiography written like a CV, describing the subjects work history and achievements. Wikipedia:Notability MagneScribe invention and various other products not notable, only article found online was https://www.cracked.com/article_15768_as-seen-tv-10-most-laughably-misleading-ads.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbbv (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the G11 CSD tag on this article primarily because it has existed since 2007 (it was recreated 2 months after the first 2007 AFD and declined for G4 speedy back then) and suggested the AFD route. It is a BLP which lists only primary self-published citations. My online search found no independent Reliable Sources with any significant coverage of this person. It fails the WP:GNG guideline for WP:SIGCOV. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage in Gnews or Newspapers. Sourced to patents and mentions in newspapers. I don't see any coverage we can use. Appears to be promo. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insanely promotional, may be notable but honestly needs to be hit with the WP:TNT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz)

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

No reason this street is notable, only coverage is routine sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Ray (singer)

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

An article about a musician. There's no independent coverage at all; exlinks are some very minor database entries and a defunct personal website. There's no evidence that this person comes anywhere close to meeting any of the parameters listed in WP:MUSICBIO. The article lists various "worked with" of somewhat notable musicians, but that doesn't confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Claims of some airplay and internet streaming airplay, even if they were sourced, would not confer notability.

Note that there are a number of other country artists called "Bobby Ray" or something similar.

See also Bobby Ray LIVE, a redir to this article (formerly a copy of this article, deleted and redirected by WP:PROD). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't coverage of this person. Singing with other famous people isn't quite notable. Sourcing here is directory listings or social media/streaming sites. I don't find any mentions in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. I'm only seeing routine coverage, and no in-depth coverage. Not sure if this is going to have any lasting effect or receive any more coverage than what's already there. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that the title of this article is misleading. It should have been named somthing like 2024 Khanyar/Srinagar gunfight/encounter, given it was not an attack. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird International

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO and fails to meet WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new sources to the article, from 24.hu, index.hu, hvg.hu and others, please check. I am not an experienced at editing wikipedia, please guide how to improve the article so it meets WP:NCORP nad WP:NOTPROMO. Thanks! Nosret Hocane (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shareef Muhammed (producer)

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

Apart from producing a upcoming movie, the subject hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy for an article. All the sources are about his upcoming movie. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject look promising, he is only notable for one event (Producing "Marco" Movie)which is not enough to create an article for him here. Tesleemah (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Producers are mostly covered by the media in the context of the projects they invest in, which makes it difficult for them to meet GNG requirements.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laggam

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

The article Laggam (film) already exists, and is more comprehensive. Content from Laggam can be merged into Laggam (film) if necessary. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This issue can be resolved by requesting a merge and someone has already submitted a request for it. Now that the issue has been brought to AFD, the content of Laggam should be merged into Laggam (film). But after the merger the title should be changed to just "Laggam".

Janmat

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

Doesn't qualify for WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Has received very basic routine coverage which amounts it "this also exists". It is an alliance of minor parties without representation in any state legislature or national parliament, more than half of them don't even have their own articles. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Jharkhand. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Lujan

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

Negative BLP on marginally notable person. Insufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable, I don't see criminal notability. Rather local notability about a law enforcement officer that was removed from office. I don't see lasting notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Jamroz Khan

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

No reliable sources cited. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lack of sources noted since 2009 without improvement. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good catch on this one! I can’t even find any trivia coverage about this person, let alone SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Common name that pops up, I don't see anything about this particular individual. It's only sourced to facebook, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any sources that would make the source any more notable. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can I ask what the reason for this is? I'm happy to fix any issues

Thanks Ecwdgbt (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reason given in nomination. The lack of independent sourcing makes the whole thing read like a press release. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy In Gujarat

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

I am not sure this page should be Keep or Deleted, So thats why I placed AFD tag. Camilear (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Piracy and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Camilear: Have a look at this. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, Oh look like sock, Please do the investigation and if he is sock then block it. Camilear (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, this sock is just moving the pages which are created by IP, from draft to main spaces, here is the another move Nana Farari did by User:Chhello bhai, Thanks. Camilear (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from my experience of interactions with this sock farm, they tend to create drafts using IPs and move them to mainspace using their socks later. WP:GAMING at best. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:36, 3 November 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.

Derk Telnekes

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan de Vreede

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos State Model College Badore

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

Non-notable school. The only source (the second's link is dead) is the school's own website, and I found very little reliable sources with significant coverage online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt van de Rijck

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Worsley

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. At best, minor notability for an incident involving Michael van Gerwen but nothing else. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Zuydwijk

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Zambia relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD outcome was redirect. A year later someone reverts this redirect with no improvement to article. These relations still fail GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and salt. Per previous AfD, as nothing has changed. Yilloslime (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Short article, but has sources that may have it meet requirements. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see 1st AfD...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Kulashko

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

Article subject has very little notability. No SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerkin

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

This is little more than an Armenian dictionary definition. A soft redirect to the Wikitionary entry for ներքին would seem appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikitionary entry for ներքին; this word is not notable, basically just a dictionary definition as stated. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:DICDEF, nor is there any particular reason to create a soft redirect to Wiktionary here any more than there is for any other random non-English word, especially since an external search for "nerkin" comes up with all sorts of other matches which have nothing to do with the Armenian word. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrashekar Bandiyappa

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

Procedural nomination. Contested Jimfbleak's WP:G11 deletion and reverted to a non-promotional revision. Potentially meets WP:DIRECTOR through his filmography. I would !vote weak keep, but I have no real opinion as I have not investigated this topic in any great detail. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR pass with 3 notable films that received critical attention. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:NFILMMAKER where all his films got multiple reviews in reliable sources. This page still needs lot of improvement made with better sources and more coverage on the career. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the three films have critical review, we should have enough to pass notability for film directors. Two films were also nominated for awards, helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes criteria four of WP:NFILMMAKER as having significant critical attention.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beauxbatons

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

This page has similar coverage and notability as other locations in the Harry Potter series, notably the Durmstrang academy as both locations have the same role in the series as schools in the triwizard tournament in the 4th harry potter book, which does not have its own article.

The references in the current article are currently two top 10 trivia lists from screenrant, an article written by JK Rowling herself about the school and other articles that talk about Beauxbatons along with other locations in the series with similar depth and focus.

Based on this with the WP:GNG guidelines I don't believe Beauxbatons has significant independent coverage to warrant its own article, and it should be merged with Places in Harry Potter with other locations in the series that have similar coverage. Mousymouse (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge makes sense to me, the best sources in the article aren’t actually about Beauxbatons exclusively, but about analysis of larger themes in the text, and I think the value of those citations could be preserved on the Places in Harry Potter page, or a section of another article dealing with analysis of themes around national identity and ethnicity in HP. penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Penultimate supper. Based on WP:GNG, this doesn't have significant coverage to warrant an article. But there is a valid WP:ATD and merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is specifically not relevant with regard to notability, if the article topic is the main topic of the source. What is relevant is if the secondary sources can provide enough material for a full article. Now the source by Flotmann, as well as others like Muggles, Monsters and Magicians, Creating Magical Worlds and "Harry Potter – National Hero and National Heroic Epic" all have commentary which goes significantly beyond a mention in passing, and can provide more material for an article which, as it is now, already goes beyond a stub. "A Postmodernistic Look at the Harry Potter Series" additionally has a much shorter, but non-trivial observation which I did not see in the other sources. The same is most likely true for Durmstrang. So both topics in my view fullfill WP:GNG. All that said, much coverage is done in direct comparison of Durmstrang and Beauxbaton. So while I think both could easily have their own article, I am also fine with them being covered in extended sections, or maybe even a combined section, at Places in Harry Potter. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And like Penultimate supper stated, the analysis deals with themes around national identity and ethnicity in Harry Potter. So if there was and article about that, that might be a good place to cover both, and that might be a more encyclopedic approach than the list of locations, but I don't know of such an article so far. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Daranios. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humiston family murders

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

Tragic, but fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. If in future this somehow is covered in depth long term we can recreate it. CoconutOctopus talk 09:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete familicides very rarely fulfill NEVENT, and when they do it's usually obvious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already a page Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged that obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is other family murder pages, why delete this? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloxzge 025 Because some incidents do end up being notable, through being analyzed or retrospected upon. Familicides are just less likely to get that kind of coverage, on account of the fact that they are by far the most common type of mass murder and tend to be fairly similar. Unless there's an obvious reason that they stick out it's best to wait until they prove notable and not make the article until that point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep, as I only voted delete per there already being a page and since other family murders with even lower deaths, etc. such as an earlier one this year still have an article. I would only vote delete if no new information comes out or coverage stops. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims is irrelevant in determining notability; the crossbow case you link is certainly notable as it was covered in depth and continually in the media (especially as the victims were the family of a media personality). I do not believe this article is notable and that it fails WP:TOOSOON and NOTNEWS. CoconutOctopus talk 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This event litteraly just happened and more information is still coming out, and you still want to delete it? I would say give it a while before you delete it Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until such time as the courts make a decision about whether this is a murder or not and decide to convict anyone for the deaths, or not. Without a conviction, Wikipedia should not even call this a murder as the accused should be presumed innocent. There is also a redirect that should be included in this discussion and treated the same way. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete I agree with CoconutOctopus's reasoning. Peaceray (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not even have a Wikidata item! Peaceray (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a major news item and rather compelling evidence (the 11-year-old's testimony, clear forensic evidence) that the 15-year-old boy committed the murders. Additionally, the WP:NOTNEWS argument fails quickly with a search for "Humiston family murders" or any other related term. Phoenixskies (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not that the topic itself is not a news item (which it absolutely is). Also, regardless of how compelling the evidence is, we can't state someone is responsible for a murder until they are actually found guilty by a court of law. CoconutOctopus talk 13:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I misread the policy. The page invariably refers to the 15-year-old as "the accused" instead of "the murderer," though. Phoenixskies (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It’s definitely a developing story, but I wouldn’t say it violates WP:TOOSOON. This policy says, “Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources.” This story is verified by multiple independent sources, and none of the claims are any that are unverified. For example, the 15-year-old is not described as being guilty but of being accused of the crime. Brittanyktanner (talk) Brittanyktanner (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are secondary, they are all WP:PRIMARYNEWS. So this does not pass the GNG, and it does not have any of the things on NEVENT that would justify waiting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. See List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 for a multitude of other familicides with similar numbers of victims. An incident of familicide being picked up by national news organizations does not necessarily make it noteworthy enough to be an article. Raskuly (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS PersusjCP (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldinho (footballer, born 1945)

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

No sign of notability. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – There are some online sources [4], [5], and considering the period and number of matches, there must be more offline. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really enough to meet WP:GNG and arguing WP:TMBS here feels pretty weak, especially since one of the sources is somebody's substack. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For players from the 60s-80s in major European leagues, it is inevitable that there is nothing in local newspapers and compendiums. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inevitable that there is something, probably? Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Show some WP:COMMONSENSE. 200+ apps for Vitoria, a major club. Giant Snowman 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe this is a valid WP:STUB article, for some reason, some editors don't believe in stub articles anymore. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "There must be sources somewhere" is not a valid argument. WP:V requires that sources are found and cited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is verified by the link in the article, this one, which is also reliable. Significant coverage is lacking, but Svartner did provide a link. Geschichte (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Seafood Bar

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

This is a minor chain of restaurants that fails to meet WP:NCORP. There are some restaurant reviews online, but no WP:SIGCOV, no evidence of awards won, or similar notable coverage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their website has a press section[6] which includes a detailed Guardian review and a link to a paywalled Financial Times review which I'm unable to judge the value of. It's got mentions in the London Evening Standard[7] and Amsterdam Mag/Amsterdam Now[8] but not in depth. Coverage in The Caterer magazine[9], a long-running publication. The generic name makes searching harder. I'm unable to check Dutch-language sources, but the lack of a page on Dutch-language WP is a red flag. But close to notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Links to The Guardian review [10] and Financial Times review [11]. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am attaching more significant sources which are not included in the article, [12], [13], [14], [15]. In WP:PAYWALL, it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I believe that instead of completely rejecting those sources we should seek help from Resource Exchange. - Snubvane (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. THREE articles in het Eindhovens Dagblad and TWO articles in Het Parool count pull this chain well over the NCORP bar. The TWO British reviews also count toward notability—one of these apparently. The GNG is met in a heartbeat. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add those articles as suitable references? I'm not a Dutch speaker, so can't do it myself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through Art – to Peace and Understanding

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

The significance of the award has not been demonstrated separately from Slavyansky Bazar. There are no independent authoritative references.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Awards, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Taek-Gwang Lee

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Can't find any notable coverage of their work in news media either. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His work is every where(books, lectures, articles). It is on Jstor, Google scholar, Google Books, Print like The Guardian has mentioned him. He is writing on Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet This is his google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=oAEdHDkAAAAJ&hl=en

This his Jstor search result: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Alex+Taek-Gwang+Lee&so=rel

He has edited a book with Salvoz Zizek https://www.versobooks.com/products/196-the-idea-of-communism-3?srsltid=AfmBOoqosEfP3Y6T5G2tDhErrlHwpEeUJFbFSsTUrhNnnkZoF9LoIJWV

He is extensively writings on French and German Philosophy and Korean Culture. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that you have made a mistake. I request you to please reconsider your decision. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

He is a known philosopher who is writing on Deleuze and Guattari, Korean Culture and other cultural topics. His publication is everywhere. WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePerfectYellow (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. Having a Google Scholar profile or having previously published books or articles doesn't help, otherwise every academic in the world would qualify for a Wikipedia article. seefooddiet (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think reputed and highly discussed books an topics are basic for academia. There are series of reputed portals who have discussed about him and give his references for saying things. Publication like The Idea of Communism 3, which he coedited with Salvoz Zizek and Salvoz also mentioned him in his writings(https://slguardian.org/we-already-live-in-the-end-of-the-world/). His writings on Deleuze and Guattari and Korean Culture are not just ordinary. He is reputed Deleuzian scholar and member of various academic society. i have given the enough reference for that. And I am keep updating his work. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

google Scholar, Goolge Books and Jstor have been required as (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. ) On this, scholar writes their books. Although, the reception of their works is important. So, he has been recognised many places for his writings on new Marxism and philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us the exact sources, you want. Scholars have cited his works a lot. So, i am also using these. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the work and reception part by using third party references. Will update this tomorrow. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're making efforts to improve the article. Respectfully, I'm still skeptical that it passes NACADEMIC. Some of the mentions you provide are trivial mentions (see WP:SIGCOV). They're brief one or two sentence mentions of Lee. The major criteria I think Lee may pass is possibly #1 (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources), but you'd have to provide sources with more than just trivial coverage to show that. Otherwise a lot of what has been presented in this thread is just your word that he is impactful. seefooddiet (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet I have rewrite the entire passage of 'work and reception' and have used all the third party references. Request you to kindly check. I have mentioned two important concepts which he drives: his intervention in the philosophical debate of 'concept creation' as he explained it as 'third world' and 'eschatological force' as he uses this phrase to describe the pain and trauma of Korean people from Korean war and conflict.

Other than this, I have also mentioned his ideas reception in media. He is also the member of respected academic societies and journals.

I request you to kindly check! ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS doesn't seem to be finding much in the way of citations? One authored book is mentioned, as well as an co-edited one, so WP:AUTHOR might be an easier route than PROF (but with a more senior co-editor on the latter I'm not sure how one might interpret any reviews). Open to persuasion but not seeing much here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas challenge flag

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

It would appear to me this is a neologism. The article lacks references, and with the required WP:BEFORE done, that would seem to be because it is a new term that is without attestation in reliable sources. A move to a notional Draft:Texas challenge flag considered, but I doubt in would, at least in the near future - let's say by 2025 - be accepted. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the title is bad but the incidents are verifiable and the reliable sources are connecting those incidents as being related (to the idea that since the game has to stop if objects are thrown on the field, fans are doing such throwing because they disagree with officials/referees' calls). [I am the article creator] (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 10:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources provided that refer to this topic. The only sources I find that refer to this are eith not reliable or not independent. E.g. this. Delete per WP:NOTNEO, WP:GNG, and bordering on WP:HOAX. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fan/flag situation at the game was somewhat notable, but no cited sources use this WP:NEO article title. Could add mentions to 2024 NCAA Division I FBS football season instead... or try to establish notability of the Texas vs. Georgia game itself for its own article. I would support creation of an article like Interference (baseball) for gridiron football where notable instances like this can be listed. Perhaps should list it at List of violent spectator incidents in sports... "Incidents of object or snow throwing are included when it ... causes significant delays or cancellation of the event." PK-WIKI (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete under that title, as there are no reliable sources using the phrase "Texas challenge flag". Also, that title assumes that these incidents acted as a challenge flag, despite the evidence that it had no effect on officiating. I very much doubt that this content is salvageable under any title because it's not clear that the three incidents are more than superficially related, and it's even less clear that the throwing of debris had any effect beyond a fine for the home team (in at least one case). Pichpich (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a disconnect between fans' understanding of the rules, and the actual rules. That's the whole reason there was no actual effect. But what the cited articles are referring to is the fact that some fans think that they can achieve a reversed call this way, which is why they have tried to do it. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing debris on the field/pitch/ice/court when the crowd doesn't like a call is a time-honored tradition and existed way before video review. It's a dumb way to express one's frustration but I'm sure the vast majority of those throwing debris are not dumb enough to think it will influence the refs and help their team. Pichpich (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't even know where to start with this: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and moreso WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Probably some WP:OR mixed in also, but it's not worth spending more time than necessary examining that. There's only two sources that have a chance of counting towards WP:GNG, but they don't mention this term let alone directly discuss the topic with in-depth secondary coverage. The conference website is not an independent reference for those incidents, and their official statements are primary sources. Left guide (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Kuprashvili

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

Apparent memorial page for a local commander of a rebellion. According to the article it relies largely on archival (primary) sources. There may be better sources in Georgian that I can’t search for, but the Georgian and Russian Wikipedia articles are based on the same sources as this. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Georgia (country), and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIST (satellite)

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

Single cubesat project of which i could find only a single news article and a few blog posts outside of the project itself Firestar587 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Da-bin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and South Korea. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Windborne Rider i think you are the one who failed to read WP:NACTOR carefully Aidillia^(talk) 14:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles in the main cast of notable productions; roles in the main cast can be considered significant; so that I consider deletion unnecessary. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Dal Soon's Spring and Unpredictable Family. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cubes Entertainments

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

Non notable film production company. Fails WP:NCORP.There are no reliable independent multiple sources available as well. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 3 November 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Molecular Pilot 06:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Laihiala

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

Not notable. Only sources are social media, blogs and Imdb Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator The Finnish Wikipedia article has sources Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:51, 3 November 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.

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two very basic problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes a redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 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!} 06:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Pourassad

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

BLP lacking any proper sourcing, cut and pasted from draft. I wanted to draftify it but the draft still exists. Does not belong in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Urdu 1

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

Tagged for notability in hopes of improvement but tag removed. A WP:BEFORE does not find significant coverage discussing the list as a whole so fails WP:NLIST. Would recommend merging the content to Urdu 1 but not finding significant coverage for the channel either. Looking at some of the programs listed, I believe a lot will fail notability as well. Searching for ("amanat" + "Urdu 1") finds nothing on Gnews, and only sources such as YouTube and social media in regular Google. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Might need cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that you are again citing MOS and not a GUIDELINE. We could create many lists on many topics if we simply use MOS. Can you point out the sources that discuss the list as a group which is a requirement of WP:NLIST?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Again"? I am going to try in capital letters, myself, maybe then :D. "AGAIN"? WP:NLIST IS A GUIDELINE. IT IS A GUIDELINE. A. GUIDELINE. A. NOTABILITY. GUIDELINE. And please JUST. READ. WHAT. I. WROTE. (all the words). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you linked here, which is a Manual of Style guideline. It is NOT a notability guideline. You cite this and WP:SPLITLIST in other AfDs as if they somehow superseded notability guidelines. You missed the part in NLIST (or selectively decided to ignore) where it says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I will ask as I have in other AfDs...can you show the significant coverage where the list is discussed in a grouping? As far as your tone, I would ask that you act a little more WP:CIVIL as its not acceptable conduct. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

d-just re-read my !vote "again" and my comment below if you're interested. "i" did not "link" anything that the guideline does not include: the link is included in the original text of the guideline, which is what I quoted: the guideline, which is a guideline (and not not-a-guideline) itself quotes mos to define what the criterion for this particular case is; check the original. other cases exist, other possibilities, other !votes, other parts of other texts, other afds but my present !vote is based on that particular part and i did not quote splitlist here, did I? "still" is the key-word in the sentence that just follows the one from the guideline that i quote. implying that someone has "selectively decided to ignore" something is not exactly a great example of assuming good faith. mentioning that someone does something "again" at afd is also not completely necessary, especially as similar cases imply similar arguments. referring to arguments or outcomes in/of other afds can be helpful to help discussion progress if similar cases offered interesting elements, not to more or less explicitly cast a cloud on contributors with general but vague ad hominem remarks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Urdu 1: I think there is not need for a separate programming page when the contents can be easily merged back into channel page. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the suggestion to merge seems to make sense, if other users think size and navigation are not an issue, the page about the network being indeed short. But I think the organisation in similar categories (List(s) of programs broadcast by XXX) is very helpful and clear for the reader. For example List of programs broadcast by Hum TV was AfDed and redirected/merged back...and now it does not appear anymore under the category, so that the reader has been deprived of a simple and powerful tool that helps navigate clearly between networks, in my humble opinion. So unless we can leave the category on the page, a merge seems detrimental to navigation (Hence my !vote). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't keep lists without proper sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Urdu 1: Fails WP:NLIST and this is an unneeded CFORK. Much of the content in fact violates NOTTVGUIDE — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the redirect target? I know the sources on the page are poor but only did a brief WP:BEFORE.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I agree the sourcing on the target Urdu 1 is poor, but whether it meets WP:N is a separate issue. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FI, coverage on the subject of the list as set includes various paragraphs on the very programming of the network in: Sulehria, F. (2018). Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan. Taylor & Francis.; Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication: Continuity and Change, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, p. 207 (on the prominence of Turkish series in the programming of U1). Adding them to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost all entries have their separate Wikipedia pages.--Gul Butt (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You do know we require sourcing for all articles, right? Just because it has an article doesn't make it notable here without proper sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were told about WP:ATA a little over a week ago. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widdows

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the types of sources like the one cited in the article, nothing comes up to establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Whatley

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a quick search, I was unable to find any sources that had any WP:SIGCOV, although I did find a couple brief mentions. Also, article has no citations. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Landers (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Carroll

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only mentions are in automated databases with name, age, games won/lost i.e. [16] and [17]. There's a single article with his name [18] that literally just says "A team won this award. The members where... [others names] and [his name]". This is a passing mention and WP:NINI from the award. Thus, no WP:SIGCOV meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:GNG. MolecularPilot 09:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that the "news" article is a WP:PRSOURCE and can't prove notability. also this "award" (if you can call it that) was only between 13 non professional teams with no coverage outside of WP:PRSOURCEs from the bar chain running it. Molecular Pilot 09:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Watton

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SPORTCRIT per nom. Literally the only things I can find about him are database entries with "he played in (and most of the time lost) these matches" and limited biographical information like name, age etc. [19], [20]. No news or WP:SIGCOV whatsoever - no human besides the creator of the article has written something about him. Molecular Pilot 09:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Federico

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BEFORE (voting) search only revealed automated databases (that list most semi-professional darts players) that don't meet WP:SIGCOV - mainly with limited biographical info like name, age, matches played - see [21], [22], [23] etc. No news or other coverage thus doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT per "if they have SIGCOV, i.e. multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable (these have no evidence of editorial checking). Molecular Pilot 08:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Biemans

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as again, after doing a WP:BEFORE (voting), all I can find him in are darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing, fixture) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. I would suggest all these darts articles be prod'ed but someone's been undoing all User:ItsKesha's prods with the same edit summary accusing them of not having done a WP:BEFORE and wanting to take it to AfD, so here we are I guess. I'll try to WP:BEFORE and !vote on as many as I can find time to. Molecular Pilot 06:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Peters

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unlike the many other darts players that came here because of mass-rejected prods, this person actually has news articles about him and not just a place in stats databases like the others. [24] [25]. I'll comment back with a !vote once I finish my WP:BEFORE. Molecular Pilot 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just routine reporting of him getting a tour card. 20-30 players do this annually. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Clark (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can only find him in darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. Molecular Pilot 06:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 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. WP:SNOW. I don’t think there’s any other possible outcome to this, so, I’m being bold here. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Utuama

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, a scholar without a named chair, prestigious honors, or other apparent inclusion criteria.Pitille02 (talk) 05:08, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This is a ridiculous nomination. Passes WP:NPOL and I don’t need to explain that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This AFD is unwarranted. We should understand that deletion is not cleanup, and deletion should not be used as a substitute for improving article quality. The subject of this article meets the criteria in WP:NPOL as a fomer Deputy Governor of a state. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Passes WP:NPOL. He was Deputy Governor of Delta State. That's notability enough according to the criteria. Procyon117 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 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.

Battle of Bojong Kokosan

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

Entirely unsourced, WP:BEFORE search shows little to nothing, and the AfC is also unsourced but with more context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Indonesia, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it's very much stub-class at the moment, during my WP:BEFORE (voting) search I found this reference from the Indonesian Government Ministry of Education and Culture - [26] - that supports everything said in the article and more and is almost the most WP:RS source possible. As well as a news article from an Indonesian news website [27] and from a popular Indonesian online magazine about history [28] that's notable enough to have it's own id.wiki article [29]. Molecular Pilot 06:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also another Indonesian news website with very clear editorial team and oversight (see the bottom of the article and also about pages) thus throughly meeting WP:NEWSORG, With all these sources talking about it extensively with whole, really long articles, and they all seem reliable (especially then government website), I strongly feel that this article meets WP:GNG. Note that I've added the government source as a reference in the article now. Molecular Pilot 06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to link this "other" website! Sorry! https://tirto.id/sejarah-pertempuran-bojong-kokosan-penyebab-kronologi-dan-dampak-giPK Molecular Pilot 07:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MolecularPilot's work. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hood

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

I feel this is a tough AFD to navigate given the murkyness of comics (because comics are comics) the page fails WP:GNG. While Jason Todd is notable, and The Joker are notable, the "Red Hood" isnt. Most coverage of "Red Hood" is either coverage of Jason or the Joker or the Red Hood Gang, not Red Hood. The idea of Red Hood as a Legacy hero isn't really a thing in comics the way Robin or Batgirl is. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? The page clearly has some use. IMHO you could make fairly decent cases for a redirect to Jason Hood or the Joker (is that confirmed in whatever iteration of DC 'continuity' we're on this week? That he was the only version of the dome-head Red Hood?), so the most sensible thing would be a disambiguation-type page that swiftly explains the gist and links to the various appropriate pages. Outright deletion seems just about the worst option, so I'm voting Keep and make more useful through editing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:SIGCOV here, here, as well as in the Batman: A Visual History I can't access. While I can't be totally certain, I think Red Hood is probably notable and enough WP:BEFORE has not been performed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Comics Encyclopedia source is just a plot summary of his role, and I wouldn't really consider it SIGCOV per Wikipedia:NOTPLOT. The IGN source is similarly just a plot summary of Red Hood's past appearances, and is additionally only talking about Jason Todd's version of the alias, which does not address the nom's concerns of being separately notable from Todd.

As an aside, how can you be sure the Visual History contains SIGCOV if you can't access it? Mostly just asking out of curiosity more than anything, because at a glance the guide itself seems akin to Comics Encyclopedia in terms of its coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries are transformative, and hence valid secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Jclemens. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid the use of plot summaries, only establishes the article must have some indication of its external importance and significance, somewhere.

And as I said, I cannot be sure if there is SIGCOV in Visual History, but it's easier to keep and confirm later than to delete and regret it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not forbid the use of plot summaries, but I cite NOTPLOT for a reason. An article needs something beyond plot. Per the policy, works must be discussed "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those work." So far there haven't been any sources actually demonstrating this, and any that do are focused entirely on the character of Todd, not the alias of Red Hood. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not clear what's being asked here. Do you want this turned into a disambiguation page? Clearly, something should exist at Red Hood. Obviously, you would prefer it be different than it is now, but what is your end goal and what are the policies and guidelines that justify it? Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Jason Todd with a hatnote for Joker. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jason Todd per nom. All coverage indicates that Red Hood is basically only known for the association the alias has to Todd, and a hatnote can point to Joker for his usage of the alias. The lack of actual sourcing for Red Hood surprises me; if anything comes up, let me know, but as it stands, the coverage is so little that I don't see a need to merge anything to Todd, when all of Todd's plot information covers the necessary Red Hood bits adequately as is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaar

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Looking at the listed films, I cannot see where he is mentioned on some and the others I do find him in are not supported by the sources used. A WP:BEFORE finds no significant coverage. There is also some FAKEREFerences used such as those for the awards. The one he apparently won does NOT show the award won, only lists his name as a nomination. CNMall41 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He is the lyricist of many songs and found some articles (reliable like Gaana, some aren't) [30] [31] [32]. Add citation needed to the award in question. DareshMohan (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference to support the award so a citation needed tag would not suffice. The other references are not reliable. The first is a redaction of what was posted on Instagram, the second is WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and the third is all quotes from the subject (it also shows a byline but posted by Odisha Diary Bureau which indicates it could be a paid placement - not assuming it is but not the strongest of sources). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:It is evident that the subject does not adhere to the WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria. From my research, only have some routine coverage and the majority of sources are not good enough. Furthermore, some of the few news stories available from internet have no bylines which means that they are mostly paid. 111.92.70.85 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [33] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [34] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [35] recital
4. [36] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Le Monde	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com	N	N	Y	N	N	The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording	N	N	Y	N	N	Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd	N	N	Y	N	N	Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de	N	?	N	N	N	Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic	N	N	Y	N	N	Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/	N	N	Y	N	N	This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com	N	N	Y	N	N	This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.

Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.

I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

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

No damage, injuries, or deaths, and no lasting impact, so may fail WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Tennessee. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't cause any damage or injuries. Doesn't seem notable. Hardly any coverage other than on the day of the quake. Seems to fail WP:EVENT to me. Procyon117 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "seismic events" section of Eastern Tennessee seismic zone where the earthquake is already mentioned. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanished (2005 film)

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

This article was PROD'd and de-PROD'd because no deletion rationale was provided. So, I thought I'd send this to AFD because it doesn't look like it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability for a film. It's been around for many years and I went through the page history, looking for a better version of the article but it doesn't exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only current "references" are the offical website, and can't find any other sources referring to it (the 2005 film) besides mirror sites and user-generated content like IMDB. WP:NFILM mainly defers to WP:GNG and I can't find a single reference to the film that's significant, reliable or independent. Molecular Pilot 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Clearwater Bay Road

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

I proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the

type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. "清水灣道8號擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.
  The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."
  The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."
2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).
  The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"
  From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."
3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.
  The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"
  From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."
4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.
  The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."
5. "彩虹站新貴清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.
  The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"
  From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah Keep the article Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Upon extending the article by adding links to reliable secondary sources represented by notable publications such as Sing Tao Daily, Sharp Daily and Hong Kong Economic Times that provide significant, in-depth and continued coverage, Cunard (talk) proved and sustained WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Helped with WP:PRESERVE in the process. The article should be WP:SALTed in order to be protected against future nominations.

JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what salting means. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (crater)

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

Following the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturaliste (crater) and Sleepy Hollow (Mars), this is not a notable impact feature. The crater is only 8 metres in diameter. According to estimates Mars has over 90 million craters that have over double the diameter of this crater (see [37]), which probably puts the number of craters of this size in the hundreds of millions. There doesn't appear to be much interesting to be said about this crater either. I propose the article be redirect to either Opportunity (rover) or Timeline of Opportunity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of Opportunity#Endurance crater cause there's a picture and mention of it in that section as it was discovered 4 days afterward the Endurance investigation missions (and the article is written chronologically). Can't find any indication of WP:SIGCOV in my search, only things are this article, an identical picture with identical description hosted on both the JPL, NASA and "the planetary society" websites, among other images with minimal descriptions across other image hosting websites - seems very WP:MILL per nom, no indication that it is has special significance beyond all those craters, of which many probably have images taken by the rover. Molecular Pilot 03:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endurance crater, as there's a photo of the Fram crater in that section. Nothing really notable otherwise, and there's less than 10 results in the news tab when searching it up (via find sources). Most other results are just photos. Procyon117 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. I feel the problem of no WP:SIGCOV and failure to meet WP:GNG still exists. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clicking on the External links Sash website brings up "Bad gateway" Error code 502. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of sexology organizations. Demt1298 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's Records

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

Fails NCORP, notability concerns for over a decade, no references easily found on internet search Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was for some time the biggest independent record shop chain in the UK, a £30 million business with at one time 36 branches, and winning several industry awards. Coverage includes 'A love letter to Andy's Records where 90s kids in Cambridge spent far too much money', 'Andy's Records shops to close' and the British Newspaper Archive has several more articles about the company: 'Top Award for Andy's Records', Andy's Records Set to Break Into Brid', 'A Fourth Major Award For Andy's Records', 'Just for the Record, the Rest Is History: From Humble Market Stall to £30m Business, Andy's Is 30', 'Third retailing award for Andy's Records'. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by @Michig, to which I would add that Graham Jones, Whatever Happened to Record Stores (2009) at 285 includes at least a paragraph on the founding of the article subject (but I'm not logged in to archive.org, and can't check if the text runs over onto other pages). Oblivy (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to withdraw following Michig's findings. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

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

Recently recreated page after earlier prod, evidently with the same tags. The station does exist (the NTC pulled a Mexico and double-dipped on DXKS) and has been around a while but needs citation help urgently to meet the GNG, a problem common to Philippines radio station articles. See also title DXKS-FM (CDO). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]