Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 01	October 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

$25,000 High Roller H.O.R.S.E.

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poker event in reliable sources, other than Poker News, which counts as a single source for notability purposes. This article should be redirected to World Series of Poker. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, United States of America, and Nevada. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Series of Poker per nom or delete. The size of the entry fee is irrelevant and doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size of the prizepool defines a tournament's importancy and the buy-in defines the prizepool. PsychoticIncall (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires notability, not "importancy", and neither buy-in amounts nor prize pool sizes factor into notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable enough in its own right for an article, which the lack of independent coverage seems to support. The article as it is now, is basically just a list of past winners. The title doesn't make for a very plausible redirect so just delete.--Atlan (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Asghari

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

Fails notability, he has some minor achievements but not good enough to make him notable. he never made the senior team and didn't participate in major World and Continental senior events. he never won bronze in World U23 Championship, he just participated and lost. he was a member of the team that won silver in 2019 World Cup but World Cup is a minor competition (and that's a team event). and it looks like he wrote the article himself!! this looks COI anyway. Sports2021 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Khoshbakht

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

Fails notability, the article just has a bunch of refs without much to say, from what I found he is a former world youth/cadet (not junior) champion back in 1996 but that's not enough to make him notable. he never won anything in junior or senior level. it looks like COI. Sports2021 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Tamil Nadu Premier League

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for separate season articles; Should be redirected to Tamil Nadu Premier League. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Tamil Nadu. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating,

2017 Tamil Nadu Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Tamil Nadu Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Tamil Nadu Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021 Tamil Nadu Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Tamil Nadu Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023 Tamil Nadu Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2024 Tamil Nadu Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article(s) ''should not be deleted/redirected''. They contain quite a bit of information with sources from TNCA, ESPN cricinfo, Cricbuzz etc.

If required, someone can take initiative in adding more sources for respective pages.

Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TNCA is the official site, doesn't count on notability. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am also against the deletion of these. While some of these articles might require expansion, copy editing and additional work on citations, generalised deletion is not the way to go. My reasons for the same:

There are standalone articles as there are similar articles for similar sporting events and it does not fail notability.
There is significant information in these articles. For e.g. the 2024 season page is ~15k bytes in length. I do not think these can be condensed into the original article. With eight seasons and further ones, it will make continue to make the original page unnecessarily longer and difficult to read.
While I do agree that some of these would require additional citations and secondary sources, generalisation as failing WP:RS is an overreach. Say the e.g. the article for the 2024 season has more than ten citations, of which a larger proportion seem to be independent secondary sources and quite a number of them are reliable.

Update: I have started working on the page for the 2024 season.

Magentic Manifestations (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence any of them pass WP:GNG. Most of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY or regurgitated press releases. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that there are several unbolded Keeps here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Keeps in bold for better visibility. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magentic Manifestations: Here is a ref analysis on the 2024 article (28 refs),

Refs 10 & 14 from TNCA site & 8 from TNPL site - WP:PRIMARY
Refs 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 20, 25, 26, 27 & 28 are from ESPNcricinfo - WP:ROUTINE
Refs 1, 3, 11, 13, 18 are about TNPL itself and not specific to season
Refs 21, 22, 23, 24 are about the stadiums
Remaining refs,

Refs 6 & 9 - Sporting news
Refs 12 & 16 - mykhel
Ref 17 - Cricket corner
Ref 19 - Sportstar

Just 4 unique sources, mostly just WP:ROUTINE coverage; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alockdia

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:GNG and geographic criteria 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, delete User is going through and using some hidden source to make a bunch of unverifiable stubs. It's bad enough when a known-to-be-unreliable source is used, but we have no idea here and the onus shouldn't be on us to figure out what source was used. Settlements are so thick on the ground in this region that GMaps is useless, notwithstanding the language issue. Mangoe (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mangoe: Yes it's a stub, but hidden source and unverifiable? The first sentence of the cited Daily Sun article says (admittedly using a transliteration without the "c"): "... Alokdia village in Kalidah union of Feni Sadar Upazila ...". That supports the entire body of the stub. The infobox contains coordinates, which are not in the newspaper article, but Google Maps show them to be in the middle of a pair of built-up area blobs bounded by Alockdia Mastar Para Link Rd and Alockdia Rd, surrounded by Alokdia Bitun Nur Jame Masjid, Alockdia Kazi Bari Jameh Masjid, Alockdia Baitul Aman Jame Masjid, and Alockdia Kendrio Jame Masjid, Alockdia Forkania Moktob, Alockdia Pharma and Departmental store, and Mannan bhuiyan Market, Alockdia (or Alockdia Sporting Club, according to the sign), so calling the map "useless" rings false. The 2011 Bangladeshi census confirms that Alokdia is a village in the stated union, upazila, and district, and says its population at that time was 2,769. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an uncited source, because a location is given. Where did that come from? Nobody wrote this article using that single news article as the source; my first guess would be that the actual source is GNS or one of its mirrors, but one cannot be sure, and in any case, GNS's reliability is (pardon the pun) all over the map. Likewise, we don't know what GMaps sources are either, and it is hardly problem-free. We don't even know that GMaps isn't copying our names and coordinates into itself, given that they've done so in the past. Look, it's fine by me if you want to rewrite the article with actual named sources, but I'm getting rather tired of coming across these mass-produced stubs which apparently are supposed to be expanded by AfD since nobody else is doing anything for them except the mechanical editors making trivial updates. As it is, the project would be better served if these articles weren't allowed to exist without actual sourcing, because we find too many geostubs which turn out to be fictions of one sort or another. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment One can debate whether WP:5P1's "Wikipedia combines many features of ... and gazetteers" and WP:GEOLAND's "presumed to be notable" mean that verifiable, legally recognized villages should be kept, which WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says they typically are, but the rationales for deletion given so far are unconvincing. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The cited source claims this is a village in Kalidah union, Feni Sadar upazila, Feni district, Chittagong division, but the 2011 census volume 3 urban area report only lists an "Alokdia" as an "other urban area" in Chuadanga city, Chuadanga Sadar upazila, Chuadanga district, Khulna division. Meanwhile the volume 2 union statistics report has an Alokdia Union in Dhaka division and another in Gazipur division. The Feni district census report only mentions a different Alokdia in Chhagalnaiya Upazila. @Worldbruce where did you find the village-level statistics?
Never mind, the Feni community report page finally loaded. Even so, I think the lack of any reasonable sources about this place besides a trivial mention in a newspaper and trivial census details in a district report ought to suggest any presumption of notability from NGEO can be rebutted for now. It's not even mentioned on the Kalidah union website; the "list of villages" on the landing page has no link and other attempts to get there failed (see image).

If a list of villages in Feni Sadar is ever created we can revisit it then. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one source in a stub basically is original research. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Silesian Interurbans. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tramwaje Śląskie

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

Article about a transport company tagged for notability for eleven months. Bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Transportation, and Poland. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any notability issue in the article. State-owned company running public transportation is pretty legit article subject. --Soman (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if notability can't be established, obvious redirect or merge target would be Silesian Interurbans -> WP:ATD. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Notability right now is not apparent from the article, and the Polish one is no better. I did not find any sources beyond press releases and mentions in passing in regional media (usually related to local issues like road repairs etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator I agree with the merge proposal. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I support the merge proposal. I scoured for sources and all I could find was this one that says this but it feels like a trivial mention. Tramwaje Śląskie is one of the largest tram network operators in Poland. The company operates nearly 30 lines in 12 cities. The total length of tracks is over 340 km of single track (including less than 30 km in depots).TŚ belongs to the 12 cities of the Upper Silesian-Zagłębie Metropolis.[1].Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kongsberg Digital

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

A company but with no obvious claim to notability. Sources confirm its existence and a recent appointment. Plenty of references revealed in a search but all appear to be simple directory listings or mentions but nothing that is both independent and in any depth. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Norway. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried to search for sources, all I found was product announcements, "company X buys product Y from Kongsberg", stock changing hands, etc., which is not sufficient per WP:NCORP. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Betania

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

No evidence of any notability. Unsources and sources are difficult (impossible?) to find. Similar stations elsewhere in South America and easily sourced, but not this one. Appers to have been unsourced since 2009 Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Argentina. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatoora Platform

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

The topic in question lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. It does not meet the necessary criteria for independently significant under Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Either the article should be deleted or merge with with the relevant parent article, Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete the Fatoora Platform page, as it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under both WP:GNG and subject-specific notability.

1. Independent Sources: The platform has been covered by reliable, independent sources such as PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and Saudi Gazette, which provide significant analysis on its implementation and role in tax compliance within Saudi Arabia. These sources establish the platform's notability as they are independent, non-promotional, and provide in-depth coverage.

2. Impact: Fatoora is integral to Saudi Vision 2030, a major national reform program, and plays a critical role in digital transformation and tax regulation in the country. It impacts millions of businesses and has been recognized as a significant development in Saudi Arabia’s economic modernization.

3. Notability Compliance: The article is well-supported by both primary and independent sources, fulfilling the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. The platform's wide-reaching impact, both locally and internationally, demonstrates its significance.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be retained. Njoy deep (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Njoy deep

1. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), notability is established through significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Consulting firms like PwC, Deloitte, and KPMG often have a direct interest in platforms like Fatoora, especially when it comes to tax compliance and advising businesses; thus, they are not entirely independent of the subject. Reports from these firms may not fulfill the "significant coverage" requirement since they may be framed in a promotional or advisory context. The coverage from Saudi Gazette could be reviewed, but if the majority of the cited sources are directly related to stakeholders of the platform, they may not be adequate to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.

2. While Fatoora's association with Saudi Vision 2030 and its role in digital transformation are notable, Wikipedia emphasizes that notability is not inherited from associations with larger programs or entities. As per WP:NOTINHERITED, the subject must have received significant coverage in its own right.

3. Your argument suggests that the article meets the criteria for both primary and independent sources, which I find questionable. However, Wikipedia requires significant coverage from independent secondary sources that have no affiliation with the subject. While primary sources are helpful for verifying facts, they cannot alone establish notability. To demonstrate notability, it is essential to provide multiple independent and reliable sources that offer in-depth analysis of Fatoora, beyond routine reports or announcements. Charlie (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in independent sources. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost (Inal Bilsel album)

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

Declined A9. Even though the artist has no article, and notability appears to be lacking as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Cyprus. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has a declared COI which indirectly relates to this subject as well, therefore this article should never have been published directly in the first place without going through AfC. Draftification for that reason could be an option. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The musician seems to be a behind-the-scenes professional who has not been noticed by the reliable media and is only visible in typical directories and download sites. An article about him could possibly get started in the Draft system, but this album has received even less coverage and fails the crucial WP:NALBUM guideline. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration and review. The draft article about the artist exists Draft:Inal Bilsel Nightfly2008 (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no article to redirect to it to; the coverage that is there is mostly trivial; and the COI is rather telling that this person and their recordings really aren't that notable. Ss112 03:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and review. The notability guides state that at least one of the notability criteria be met. The article/artist does meet the following criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" Nightfly2008 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edward Seymour

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thomas Edward Seymour

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

If you cut through the excessive promotional language and the name-dropping that has no connection to the subject's direct work, what we have here is a non-notable filmmaker who made a few obscure films. A few of the filmmaker's movies have their own articles, but I will leave the notability of those articles to another editor. With this article, I am under the belief that Mr Seymour himself does not appear to meet the basic level of WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gsearch is social media, his university, Rotten Tomatoes, imdb, then off into un-RS. Hardly any hits in Gnews. I suppose being mentioned in the one book could be important for notability, but there is nothing else to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Citations were included as external links. Then they were commented out. Someone moved them to Talk:Thomas_Edward_Seymour. It seems that there are sufficient links to satisfy "Notability". Those "external links" need to be included as in-line citations. ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "external links" are nearly all press releases or fleeting mentions in non-notable websites. The headlines given to the links do not correspond with the actual web pages, and they fail to compensate for the WP:BIO problems. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find some interviews in Indie zines, a decent but non-independent article from his CUNY employer, and a one paragraph review in the NY Times. He has indeed directed movies (e.g. "Bikini Bloodbath" series), but there's not nearly enough for BIO, nor GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the Oaktree b and Lamona explanations. Doha Dear (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and not quite yet to significant coverage; one paragraph in the Times, two local news articles, and social media / blog posts don’t add up to WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifah Al-Yaqout

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

Page which was previously PROD'd by Ravenswing which was removed by an IP user without any attempt to justify. He does not appear to be notable, and a quick spot check indicates that many of the sources are direct primary, i.e. by him, and that others do not validate the claims made such as being a consultant. Highly promo, I don't see notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kuwait. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "NN lawyer, with sources restricted to primary, namedrops and press releases." There's nothing much to add to that, except that if the anon IP who's wasting our time here has any valid sources to proffer, they're free to do so. Ravenswing 05:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Ravenswing's opinion of the article. Doha Dear (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Corsican

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

None of the sources used in the page are reliable when it comes to language or proving this is a separate language from "modern" Corsican. Searching found a few user generated website discussions and usage of the phrase "old corsican" in contexts unrelated to language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. These sources are tangentially related to the topic without any actually focusing on the actual subject. I’m not sure if this subject is even recognized by linguistics. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisec ambush

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

Does not appear to be a notable ambush. All of the CNN sources that were used as sources appear to be dead. I think the content of the article can be merged into other related articles (2001 insurgency in Macedonia and National Liberation Army (Macedonia)) if other sources are found anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Police, Albania, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't need to be a standalone article even if sources are found. --Local hero ^talk 01:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Guitar School

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

This is one of the best efforts I've seen at a Wikipedia article that passes the "eye test" most of us give articles. Formatted correctly, a bunch of references, looks legit! It was written by an employee (exact name of the Wikipedia article creator listed as employee) which doesn't inherently mean it's unacceptable for Wikipedia, but it is an undisclosed WP:COI and means the article was written as self-promotion. So I looked at the sources and none really checked out.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1, 9, 11, 12. NYC Guitar school website	Self-published	?		✘ No
2. NY Daily News		Labelled advertisement		✘ No
3. Gamespot			Source makes no mention of this school	✘ No
4, 10. timeout.com	?	?	Schedule/directory listing with prices, promotional in nature, no meaningful coverage	✘ No
5. Madscience.org	?	?	1-sentence passing mention on a business blog	✘ No
6. NEA			Coverage is limited to a 2-paragraph quote promoting the school	✘ No
7. Guitar Aficionado			Does not mention NYC Guitar School	✘ No
8. Guitar Nation		?	NYC Guitar School mentioned in passing as the sponsor of an event	✘ No
13. Pursue the Passion		?	Blog article written by NYC Guitar School employee	✘ No
14. Forbes contributor	?	WP:FORBESCON		✘ 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}}.

So yeah. That's every source analyzed, none are independent, non-trivial coverage in a reliable source. So this article does not meet WP:NCORP. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found nothing better than the (insufficient) sources in the article when conducting my BEFORE search. Mach61 17:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NCORP. Really nothing but an advertorial. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above analysis; fails GNG. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maz Maz

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

I declined speedy deletion, but clearly enough doubt as to notability as to warrant at least nominating for deletion for lack of notability. Safiel (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Safiel (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created as promo by a single-purpose account. Very poorly sourced - sources include their own website, a deadlink to Alibaba, a defunct business directory, a trademark database and what appears to be an Iranian PR Newswire. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Iran. AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William John Veale

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

Non-notable teacher/secondary school administrator. Both sources in-article are affiliated with the subject's school. Having an MBE, the lowest and most common class within the Order, is not considered a WP:ANYBIO #1 pass on its own. No additional qualifying sources for WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC come up in WP:BEFORE search. (I would have draftified this page, but since it was created 11 months ago as the page creator's sandbox but only moved to mainspace today, it's not eligible for draftification and AfD it is.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notability criteria are met. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy contributor to his society but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This page has been moved to the Draft namespace. Diegg24 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THis was an improper move to Draft space and has been moved back. ~ GB fan 15:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nezar Kadhem

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

Mildly WP:PROMO biography (by a now-blocked sockmaster) of a businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. The sources are all WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRADES publications and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject in the context of coverage of his company. Nothing else comes up in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bahrain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eat App. Doha Dear (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not redirect this blocked sockmaster's promo that does not establish notability via valid and directly relevant secondary sources. Redirect makes restoration too easy. Creating a new redirect without the article history would be acceptable. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to China–Tunisia relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 state visit by Kais Saied to China

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

There is no indication of notability for this visit. The sources are almost entirely government press releases and should be more WP:DIVERSE for independent notability. The page should be deleted and perhaps parts merged into the main Kais Saied article. Amigao (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Events, Tunisia, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Kais Saied is the President of Tunisia. This is an official State visit and as such, notability is an extremely big deal. I linked an independent English language source (2024 China-United States Exchange Foundation) under External links. I also linked a Brookings Institution commentary under External Links. They're building valuable contacts in a world that seems to be exploding, "Although there is no visible alienation between Tunisia and the European Union, the gradual distancing between Tunisia and the United States has become increasingly apparent." — Maile (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with no prejudice against a merge to the very empty China–Tunisia relations. The coverage and arguments provided by Maile to me, indicate that this event is likely to be notable (but not guaranteed) under WP:GEOSCOPE. I can see a benefit for having a summary of the event merged into the China-Tunisia relations article, (lack of analysis by secondary sources leaves this article as mostly a summary of what each government said about the event) but I view that more as an editorial decision than an AFD one. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this into the almost empty China–Tunisia relations makes sense. - Amigao (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I'm thinking about it, the more it makes sense. The two countries have diplomatic relations, but they seem very minimal. Documenting the visit in that article would help provide a clearer picture to the readers - especially because my keep vote is based more on the fact that I think secondary sources analysing this event are more likely going to exist in the near future than not. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Kais Saied is the president of Tunisia, and the president's visit to China in 2024 has brought diplomatic relations to the level of a "strategic partnership", meaning that future communication between the two sides will no longer be limited to the central government, but can be decentralized to the level of provincial and municipal cooperation, with direct cooperation in trade and military affairs as well. The same applies to direct cooperation in trade and military matters. China–Tunisia relations for sure, I think it could be worth significantly upgrading the content, and I will add it soon. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to China–Tunisia relations. This is a news article and lacks proper coverage, absolutely no reason for it to have its own article independently of the main subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to to China–Tunisia relations. I agree with Thebiguglyalien, this seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS and would be better addressed in an article about a topic that has received sustained coverage. hinnk (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Geschichte (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:RECENTISM, Without significant coverage as well as having a short term effect, it is better to merge it with China-Tunisia relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79lives (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GrabUp - Talk 13:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaragan

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG as no in-depth coverage of the subject has been found from reliable independent sources. The cited sources are mostly unreliable, and the reliable sources only provide passing mentions. Additionally, the article fails to meet WP:NFILM. It could potentially be recreated if multiple reviews from reliable independent sources are published after its release. GrabUp - Talk 12:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 12:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no issue i will move draft Monhiroe (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: kindly move to draft Monhiroe (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. WP:TOOSOON and per nom. Sources are poor to unreliable with no significant coverage. Maybe after the release of the film, some sources with reviews and other significant coverage might come forth, and then the page can either be recreated or reedited with sources that meet secondary independent reliability criteria. For now fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator himself had reDrafted it so that Draftification although not procedurally standard seemed pretty consensual among all contributors. This is therefore a (fair) procedural AfD and a consensus seems easy to reach if the creator confirms he agrees to Draftification. @Monhiroe:: what do you say? (Announced release on October, 4) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done @Mushy Yank Monhiroe (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies and thanks! You had already done it indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monhiroe Mushy Yank, please page should not be moved to draft while this AFD is in place. RangersRus (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? I never said to move it during AfD and am rather aware we should wait for a close, mind you; just trying to make sure we can reach consensus as you can see if you read my comment with attention. Please amend your comment, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? Why are you making big fuss about it? It is just a general comment. RangersRus (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why I am not surprised by your reply? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that relist. Release is announced for October 4 so hopefully coverage coming in less than 3 days. Since we are here, can I !vote Relist 1 more time so that probably upcoming sources can be added? Thanks. https://www.cinemaexpress.com/tamil/news/2024/Sep/26/michael-thangadurai-starrer-aaragan-gets-a-release-date https://www.cinemaexpress.com/tamil/news/2024/Sep/28/mai-chirai-from-aaragan-out (If Relist is not a valid AfD vote, count it as a temporary procedural K !vote, please). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should wait until the release, as we can see that the release changed the outcome of this AfD. GrabUp - Talk 09:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The release day has passed in India, and only TOI has reviewed the film; no other notable reviews have been published yet. GrabUp - Talk 19:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the upcoming release will bring more clarity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify TOOSOON - two articles announcing the release of the film are not sufficient to keep this in main space. It sounds like the authors of those articles hadn't even seen the film yet. We should wait at least for reviews after the film has been viewed. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The release date is today. Let’s see if we can get some reviews. GrabUp - Talk 05:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. The only issue I can find is that the draft was created too early. There are two reliable reviews. Video reviews are fine as long as they are from a reliable source. See There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. at Wikipedia:Video links. DareshMohan (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor arguing to Keep so I don't you could consider this a SNOW Keep. That would require all or almost all of a large number of editors voting to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the reviews from Dinamalar, as it is not a nationally known critic or nationally known site. Failing WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 03:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it will be very difficult for non-Tamil editors to verify anything from the video review. GrabUp - Talk 03:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I think I misunderstood the meaning of Snow Keep but I would vote Strong Keep. @GrabUp: Your argument isn't valid for India especially South India including Tamil Nadu. People in Tamil Nadu speak Tamil while most of North India speaks Hindi. It isn't possible for a Tamil newspaper to be nationwide. Similar such sources like Dina Thanthi are declared as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. @Mushy Yank: Do you feel the review is notable/what is your vote? DareshMohan (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two reliable reviews (The Times of India and Dinamalar) help meet WP:NFILM. Found another review, this time from a Sri Lankan website. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming with another review. I am withdrawing the AfD, Keep. GrabUp - Talk 13:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre"

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

The only usable source here is La Libre, which is not sigcov and is not enough. Found 1 other journal source that looks good (though I question its independence). Redirect to author Patrice de Plunkett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a number of reviews and coverage in French, until we can say otherwise I think we can assume that there is enough coverage outside the english language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back No reliable, significant ones to my awareness. None found in a search of French media sources either. Every French source used here is a blog, or passing mention. Or has no independence from the Opus Dei, which obviously has a COI here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the sources used inline are linking to the ones in the further reading. These sources are four interviews with blogs, all affiliated with Da Vinci Code conspiracies or the Opus Dei, and the brief La Libre mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be any coverage in French... I tried the title with "critique" or "revue critique"... you can get a thousand places to buy it, see where it's held in libraries... This was all I could find that even mentions it [2]... The subject of Ops Dei is mentioned here, but not specifically about the book [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b For future reference the word usually used for (well, some, typically academic reviews) book reviews in French is compte rendu. There is one review I found while searching that phrase but I think it's from an Opus Dei affiliated publication so questionable independence. Even if its not, it's only one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction... I'm not using my French as much as I should, it gets jumbled with the English in my head. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading here [4], but there isn't much coverage of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on a redirect? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could redirect to the author, his name comes up enough in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to satisfy GNG. There does seem to be reviews and other coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, including: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. A search for the full title of the book will not find all of the sources that exist. At a minimum you need to run searches like "Opus Dei"+plunkett, and you need to search GBooks. James500 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones of those are actual reviews? Because from previewing none look like sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patrice de Plunkett, the author. It can be covered there without worrying about whether it's stand-alone notable or not, and then it can be better contextualized with other information about the author and his interest in Opus Dei, which seems to me an important and neglected part of his bio article. With the sourcing concerns we have and the fact that this topic is WP:FRINGE-bait, better to consolidate imo. -- asilvering (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse: From Us

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Redirect was reverted DonaldD23 talk to me 14:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Korea, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dreamcatcher (group): found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will be better redirect to Dreamcatcher_discography#Extended_plays. Agree? RangersRus (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as it has enough sources in Korean articles be it in Naver, Daum, or Nate. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to these articles so they can be assessed? DonaldD23 talk to me 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my super late response as I either didn't see your reply in my notices or I overlooked it. Anyways, here's the search results of articles in Naver (sorted from old to new) about the EP. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 11:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreamcatcher_discography#Extended_plays. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who revert the initial deletion/redirect, I should probably comment as well (especially since the lack of discussion was the reason for my revert). I'm not familiar with how these discussions usually go, but going off the list provided in WP:NALBUM, I'd say it passes on at least the second of the criteria, since the album has appeared on the Korean "Circle Album Chart" recording a highest position of #7. The article also has several references which would allow it to pass the first criteria, but there's also references in there which I would not consider reliable or independent (KTown4u for example is an online store, not a reliable news outlet). Whether this is enough too keep the article, I leave for other editors to decide.DragonFury (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Keep as per DragonFury. The article needs fixing though. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more input on whether this passes inclusion criteria under WP:NALBUM?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked into the Circle Chart based on DragonFury's comment, but I wasn't able to find the #7 placement in the Album category. However, under the Global k-Pop chart, the track "Bonvoyage" from the the Apocalypse:From Us album reached 179th in the top charts for about a week: [11] I don't think this is quite enough to avoid deletion, however. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 05:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MetropolitanIC The charting #7 is supported by this located inside Citation #8 in Dreamcatcher discography. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, I appreciate it.

I'll be voting keep per this ranking. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 08:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selva Erdener

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

The article uses zero independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. – The Grid (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural~~ keep: I'll try to find sources if I can, but for now I suggest a ~~procedural~~ keep since this is a very low-effort nomination for an opera singer whose name I can recognize. See: WP:NEXIST, WP:BEFORE TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source, from Hıncal Uluc's column. Many more search hits exist, but one needs to sift through them to identify SIGCOV. In addition, the SNG about musicians is likely to be satisfied here, due to concerts and records from notable firms.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That's not a valid argument for a procedural close per WP:PCLOSE. If you think that there is WP:SIGCOV, then by all means provide evidence of it here. That is what an WP:AFD discussion is for. Better yet, take time to improve the article. You may vote a straight keep based on policy but is there is no procedural argument to be made here.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google throws up plenty of sources, over a number of years, showing sustained coverage, but even the first citation in the article itself would have been more or less sufficient, giving evidence of an extended European Tour, satisfying WP:NMUSIC on that alone.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John McKenna (director)

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

No reliable sources. Obviously promotional. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Film. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and or WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. In its current form the article is at best having zero citation because all references in it are primary and mostly do not even mention him. Piscili (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comment - I cannot find significant coverage of this person or even his company. The article mixes them both, and neither has a lot written about them from independent sources. I might have been convinced to keep it if the awards were personal to the subject, but looking through them it seems that they don't make any in-depth discussion of his contributions. Reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Football Ultras

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

Not notable, fails to meet WP:GNG and involves conflict of interest with article contributors. Yesterday "Bangladeshi Football Ultras" posted on Facebook page about the team involved of the article, they mentioned some users (may be they are User:Syfullah Nabil, User:মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন, User:Mehedi Abedin, User:Mr Kazi Tuhin & others according to mentioned name on post) but the post deleted today^[1] Post Archive link ^[2] Post screenshot link ^[3] added . The article creator commented on the post & thanked to User:অনুরাগ (may be) & others. I think the article is a part of advertising and promotion.

References

Al Riaz Uddin (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Al Riaz Uddin (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brother this is not a promotion or paid editing. Don't delete this article. Syfullah Nabil (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this facebook post, they literally thanked you (& others) for creating the wikipedia article and said "Thank you to the whole team behind it, who are still working" and then you commented & said "I am proud to make this contribution to Bangladeshi Football Ultras". You should disclose any relationship you have with them. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article may be removed if significant policy violations occur but this is not a promotion or paid editing. For notability, there should be at least three independent sources based on only about the topic and there are 2 references from prothom alo and 1 reference from banglanews24vonly writen on the topic. According to this criteria the article is quite surely notable. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 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:GNG. In this facebook they thanked Prothom Alo, the same way they thanked some wiki user for creating their wikipedia article. I won't be surprised if those news articles are also paid news. It is quite evident that serious WP:Canvassing involved from Bangladeshi Football Ultras. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am here not to vote on the deletion discussion, but to clarify my situation and stance. I was not in the team who created the article, and actually I have no connection with these people mentioned on the post (but I know মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন). I didn’t create the article, also I didn’t expand or make significant contributions on the article. What I did is I added categories on the article as a routine work. My routine work is to see for new articles from WikiProject Bangladesh and create talk page and add categories to them if needed. And if needed, I also make some edits to correct article contents. That's what I did for Bangladeshi Football Ultras. I noticed that the "External Links" section was not on the bottom so I edited the page to move it. Then I noticed that the article needs categories so I added them (see my edits: 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). They are all part of my routine work. But yes of course if I realize that any certain article may be deleted soon then I choose not to edit them sometimes. But I didn’t realize that this page could be one of them, so I edited it. And I have nothing to do with that "team". Looks like these people are under wrong impression or they don't understand what the teamwork really is. Mehedi Abedin 16:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to add another thing here, before the creation of the article, মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন asked me on Messenger app that if the subject is notable in Wikipedia or not. Aside this, we both have no conversation about Bangladeshi Football Ultras. Mehedi Abedin 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No notability or anything that justifies encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is clear that the article does not meet the criteria for notability. Instead, the main person of this work can be punish for this paid editing or canvassing. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 07:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's failed to meet WP:GNG and users involved conflict of interest.--DelwarHossain (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrespective of notability, this article is written in a variety of gibberish I can't parse, and gibberish is my second language.TheLongTone (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Veretenina

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

The sources used are from organization websites that have a direct connection to the subject. No independent sources are used. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment @4meter4: isn't it excessive to add such amount of maintenance tags, especially just before nominating for deletion? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of experience, I find it useful to tag problems relevant to an AFD to help guide talking points in an AFD discussion. It may aid article improvements during an AFD if a rescue is attempted, or it helps others identify sourcing problems that may confirm a lack of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources I managed to find: appearances on national TV and radio [12] (not original but appearance in ETV+), [13] [14] (Raadio 4) and reviews on Sirp [15] [16] and marriage. I made the search with "Maria Veretenina", but the search should be done in Russian, I think "Марии Веретениной". First results from that: long interview and another interview on Postimees but needs a paid subscription. There are more, but this should be enough to confirm it passes GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the sources identified above by Pelmeen10 which confirm national TV and radio performances and the Sirp reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as my comment before didn't include a vote. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest not using the term "vote" in AfD's. Shadow311 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all use "vote" but it is generally in quotes. People understand that it is not a vote count. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Sung-hyun

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

Played 16 matches in Korea 15 years ago. Lack of sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Being mentioned in WP:PASSING as one of tens of players that were banned in doesn't bring him over the bar. Geschichte (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahn Jae-gon

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

No compliance with WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 292 minutes in the K League, as well as briefly in lower divisions. Geschichte (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found this article on Edaily that discusses him being appointed interim coach. (a few sites have copied this story so I don't know if this is the original or not) this one from the Chosun Ilbo focuses more on a high school winning a national championship and only talks about Ahn earning an award, plus a comment from him. Not sure if it's WP:TRIVIAL or not. Overall, I don't think there's enough SIGCOV to warrant an article. OzzyOlly (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 12:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I don't think the action taken in Australia is sufficient to establish notability for this subject and the Delete arguments are stronger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IronFX

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks independent coverage outside of WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Cyprus. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if the company fails notability, the regulatory action that was taken against it in Australia is a notable event. Sargdub (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an... interesting argument Sargdub. Do you mean notable in the colloquial sense, or do you mean in the NEVENTS sense, despite such coverage being typically considered WP:ROUTINE (see also WP:ILLCON)? Even if the event is notable, that would not support an article on the company. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage / The Wall Street Journal. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a routine announcement that the company is filing for an IPO, but no IPO happened. It is not an example of significant coverage. Gheus (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 美しい歌 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find coverage of CEOs leaving the company, funding and other routine business items, on what look like less than RS websites. I don't see much in the current sourcing we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the Keep !vote rationales fall within the criteria for establishing notability of a company as per GNG/WP:NCORP and I am unable to locate any sourcing that meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to KORA Organics. ✗plicit 14:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KORA Organics

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

Media sources and coverage focus on the founder Miranda Kerr, so the article lacks significant coverage and notability. 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Australia, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- already mentioned in Miranda Kerr article, and there is not sufficient independent coverage about the company to merit a standalone article. At least, not yet. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The two sources in the article which have anything more than passing mentions are interviews and thus not independent. All results I found during a search were either interviews or PR/announcements. This appears to fail WP:NORG as there is a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject and which address the organisation directly and in detail. TarnishedPath^talk 03:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't meet WP:NORG threshold. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KORA Organics Doha Dear (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to itself? TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I meant Redirect to Miranda Kerr. My bad, sorry. Doha Dear (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. I'm not opposed to a redirect. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi

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

As far as I can see, this article has been repeatedly edited in a promotional manner. I've gone a long way back to look for a revision that is worth retaining and I can't find one. I'm not even convinced of notability. If it's staying, it needs a complete rewrite Deb (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She writes quite a bit, with numerous bylines found. This [17] is about her, this talks about an award [18], but it's rather brief. I don't see much else we can use for sourcing. Article is very PROMO as it stands. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Disability, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although a prolific communicator, writing for many journals and blogs, I find very little about her that is independent. There is one article in Prison Fellowship (presumably not a major publication) about a report that her non-profit produced, and an article in Jewish Herald Voice of Houston. Lamona (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot of promotional content and we're lacking reliable sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few sources in the article are independent. I did remove the worst of the puffery. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle with the history preserved if someone would like enact a merger. Star Mississippi 01:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VTES 3rd Edition

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

Outside MtG, individual sets of CCGs are almost never notable, and I don't see why this should be an exception. Maybe merge the mention of awards to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle if it is not there and redirect this per WP:ATD-R? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinion on the suggestion to Merge this content to a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of determining consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Three relists for this, really? Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Global

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

The primary citations center around the IPO listing and fundraising efforts. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. At the time of this nomination, an agency had withdrawn a credit rating, and no analyst reports existed on the web. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Nominator is doing nothing except marking the pages up for the deletion. They should read and understand the basics of Notability first. The subject passes the guidelines. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are familiar with the notability guidelines, would you mind adding them here by conducting a WP:SIRS? Discard IPO related news due to WP:CHURN, feel free to use anything else instead. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject certain could be notable, but the sources aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: besides the IPO and funding announcements, there isn't much else to be found. They've hired a CEO... All I find are routine business announcements. What's now used in the article doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the other editors, I am unable to find anything beyond the usual WP:CORPROUTINE churnalism that's prevalent for many run-of-the-mill companies. I cannot see any relevant sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent's Home for the Aged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Given that there are some sources with definite SIGCOV in English plus a handful like this that provide partial coverage, I'm inclined towards keep. I'm not familiar with the local languages, but I'd hazard to guess that further RS SIGCOV exists. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbritti, SIGCOV doesn't exist in the local language, unfortunately. Courtesy ping @Wikibear47: to ask if they found coverage in local languages? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not really. Its a pretty obscure place with not much coverage. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find independent reliable coverage Wikibear47 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naygel Coffie

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

Created in a different time when national team play was within the guidelines; it is not anymore and I was not able to find a single article to contribute to passing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ as G7 per author request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceAble

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

Not notable space startup with trivial mentions and with no relialbe independent non-trivial media coverage required by WP:NCORP. Taking off shortly (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Astronomy, Spaceflight, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hardly any coverage of this company in French media sources. Some interviews with people that work there, but mostly press releases. What's used in the article now isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV in RS. Piscili (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article. I agree that SpaceAble's notability can be questioned. James Tamim (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Whales

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

Not notable startup with PR news, wire and trivial mentions and with no relialbe independent non-trivial media coverage required by WP:NCORP. Per WP BEFORE only trivial mentions appear Taking off shortly (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. There are more than enough RS proving notability over at fr.wp to save the flying whales. Nominator has been warned on their UTP for failure to make even a perfunctory check for RS before making nominations. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCORP. Piscili (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep Under WP:NCORP we are looking for significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent reliable sources per WP:SIRS. There is nothing obvious about a company accessing startup funding to develop a product or service, where said product or service remains unattained. The flurry of coverage that such startups generate in the funding round are not sustained coverage and rarely meet CORPDEPTH. The five sources in the article are all about the funding round and proposed new service. The dirigibles capture the imagination, but it is hard to say these sources meet CORPDEPTH for the company itself. Yet I also note that sources like La Presse are very good news sources, and we have both European and North American sources. I think this meets CORPDEPTH.[19] The other references perhaps do not as they focus on the proposed service rather than the company itself, but they are quite effusive on that. The airship also gets mentioned in this book [20]. Again, that is the airship not the company. So in terms of what we have, I don't think we are quite there. But then searching elsewhere leads me to quite a lot of interest and many other articles. My feeling is that this is unusual, generating real interest and that it is almost certainly notable, even though technically we need at least one more article that talks specifically about the company. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick: Usine Nouvelle, Le Monde, Les Echos, Le Figaro, Le Devoir, SudOuest, etc. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for the one in le Monde? but I think I'll go ahead and strike the "weak" even if we have not specifically identified the CORPDEPTH for the company yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There are two, but this one talks about the factory in Gironde. I linked to SudOuest instead because that's a recent article (last month) in the regional paper of record. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had seen this one in le Monde,[21] but did not feel that met CORPDEPTH on the company, but I think the one you link does. There is also some depth to the SudOest article, which I agree is reliable and independent too. So yes, that looks clearer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constructions industrielles de la Méditerranée

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

Not notable organization with no relialbe independent non-trivial media coverage required by WP:NCORP. Primary sources mainly. If to make WP BEFORE -- only trivial mentions appear Taking off shortly (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on non-trivial coverage...

Malga, Paul (7 May 2020). "CNIM, fleuron français de la mécanique de précision, est en vente". Les Echos (in French).
Malga, Paul (19 January 2021). "Foule de repreneurs dans la vente à la découpe de Cnim". Les Echos (in French).
"Paprec reprend des activités de la Cnim à la Seyne-sur-Mer". Le Figaro (in French). 5 April 2022.
"Groupe Reel reprend Cnim Systèmes Industriels". Les Echos (in French). 3 October 2022.

-- -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per SashiRolls. This article has a chance to become larger and better.

IMMMMMMMM ENCAMS 12:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per newly added sources to the discussion. Clear not following WP Before. Prone to fails (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Closure Systems

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

Not notable organization with no relialbe independent non-trivial media coverage required by WP:NCORP. Primary sources mainly. If to make WP BEFORE -- only trivial mentions appear Taking off shortly (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of its Google news hits are from non-independent packaging media. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for participating Taking off shortly (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Phonological history of Catalan. Already moved into target article. asilvering (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cases where /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are found in Western Catalan

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

Is Wikipedia supposed to be a pronunciation guide for every dialect in the world? Western Catalan doesn't even have a separate article here. Fram (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Spain. Fram (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on Valencian, which has its own standard although I named it after Western Catalan. It's a quick guide to find when open /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are found since some users confuse them in the transcriptions of Catalan and Valencian across Wikipedia. I think there is no harm keeping it. English has a lot of dialectal variation and lots of articles about mergers and splits of different vowels, so why couldn't Catalan have a table about the frequencies of open e and o. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Western Catalan doesn't have an article (yet) I'll rename it to "Cases where /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are found in Valencian" as according to sources. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 10:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article is only sources to one book; I've found a few others [22] and [23]. This still seems a bit too specialized for wiki, might be better at wiktionary, but we have enough sourcing if we decide to let it stay here. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability, even after looking at the above sources. At most, this would warrant a sentence or two in an (as of yet nonexistent) article on Western Catalan phonology, and certainly not an exhaustive list of words. Even the sources provided give understandably brief mentions of this particular sound among others used in the dialect, with no indication that this is some special topic of such interest on its own as to warrant in-depth discussion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could try to add the rest of Catalan dialects and also include the correspondences of stressed schwa in Balearic. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki per WP:NOTDICT. Nardog (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a dictionary, the article could be reorientated towards a different direction and speak about the difference in the vowel system. I think Spanish has an article about the lisp and the medieval readjustament of sibilants (Phonological history of Spanish coronal fricatives), which is similar to the evolution of the sounds of this article in Catalan, we'd just need to add further information about the stressed schwa of Balearic and the correspondent /ɛ/ in Central Catalan and /e/ in Western. This readjusrment takes place from mediaeval Catalan and I think it's quite relevant to leave it on Wikipedia. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said it could be useful including these topics on Wikipedia. We could change the article to Phonological history of Catalan vowels. What do you think? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balearic Catalan stressed /e/ (/ɛ/ in Central Eastern Catalan), which arose through the merging of Classical Latin /eː/ (ē) and /ɪ/ (ĭ), has been replaced by schwa highly systematically irrespective of syllable type, word position and length and the articulatory properties of the contextual consonants (Balearic [plə] plēnu 'full'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuvolet (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an entire (and rather detailed) article on Phonological history of Catalan - surely this would be most useful merged to that article. I find it dubious that anyone will search WP on "Cases where etc." It matters that the information seeking process be a major consideration. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with your proposal. I started that article (Latin-to-Catalan sound changes) a while ago, then someone copied it with a different label. Perhaps it could be divided between vowels and consonants (on the same article). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 04:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that this article has been merged to Phonological history of Catalan, is this deletion discussion necessary any more? JIP | Talk 21:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. I just wanted to ask if it's possible to keep the page as a redirect. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we’re nit a gazette and nobody’s going to search for the term. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. M. Munuswamy

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

Challenged Draftification: After conducting notability checks, I found that the article does not meet any notability criteria. It fails WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources, it fails WP:NPOL as the subject is not an elected official in a notable office, and it fails WP:ANYBIO as there are no significant awards or recognitions. Additionally, freedom fighters are not inherently notable. GrabUp - Talk 08:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 08:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet notability requirements. Piscili (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons explained so well in the nomination. Sincerely, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO. No significant coverage in secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuya Fukuzaki

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

The claim to notability, playing 558 minutes in Singapore, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go Ito

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

The claim to notability, playing 8 matches in Bosnia and 138 minutes in Japan's third tier, and not even a single cup game, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a bit of a journeyman, played in Taiwan and Bosnia as well as the lower leagues of Japanese football where most of his football was in the Kyushu Soccer League which is the 5th tier of Japanese football, non-league. I had a look at the Japanese sources through the translator, but to me they are mostly WP:ROUTINE. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article in Japanese has 12 sources, they were properly checked? The athlete played for modest clubs, but has an extensive career. Svartner (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Svartner: Although I didn't directly mention the Japanese wiki, those are the sources I checked. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Rosenberg

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Known only for working in other people's bands with no notability as individual musician. Sources are all primary while he's not even mentioned in Conan O'Brien's article despite their long association, so a redirect would not be recommended. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pennsylvania. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. He doesn’t even come close. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to My Anthem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Anthem: Sympathetic Resonance

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

Non-notable remix album that failed to chart. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG John B123 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. John B123 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Anthem, its parent album, where there can be a brief mention of the remix album's existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My Anthem as it fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 22:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Aggarwal

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP with no WP:SECONDARY sourcing. References are routine company news. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might consider also reviewing/nominating Brown living as that was a redirect and now is not (and a copy of the page was deleted at Brown Living). Izno (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no links at all and is promotional. Subject's company and otherwise meaningless awards also not notable. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Article mixes up subject and his company, and sourcing is all primary. I cannot find better coverage that supports meeting any notability criteria. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gleb Frank

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

BLP with no coverage. Reference are routine business news. Passing mentions, PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see Forbes coverage here, not sure that's enough for the article to stand. I will do further research before casting my votes.

Tesleemah (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a passing mention. One of the reasons I posted it. scope_creep^Talk 20:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find mentions of the person in Seafood Source, which doesn't strike me as a RS. [24]. Delete as no sourcing found. As the nom says most sourcing is PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Taguig. as an ATD. There is no section on Taguig as proposed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibayo-Tipas

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

We have a consensus that barangays are not automatically or generally notable. Individually they may be, but this one doesn’t seem to be. The sourcing is extremely thin and contrary to what the “expand article” template suggests the article can’t be expanded from Tagalog as the Tagalog article has a single source. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. HueMan1 (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Useless comment. What is now Taguig is an amalgamation of several old towns during the American rule in the Philippines. (The Americans consolidated many small towns into larger ones, the most famous of which is Quezon City, which was actually done by Filipinos.) This barangay is a one of the Tipas barangays; other examples are the several Bicutan, Signal, Embo barangays and the original Taguig center. I suppose someone can come up with articles for Tipas, Taguig, Signal, Taguig just like Embo, Taguig, but if no one is doing that, a redirect to Taguig#Barangays should suffice. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I believe a Redirect is being proposed here. Do we have any additional support for this option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment support redirect as nominator and self-trout for not thinking of that in the first place. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Howard the Duck. HueMan1 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000

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

Non-notable defunct radio station. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Andorra, and France. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils:, I disagree with you. I think the article about Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000 deserves to stay because the topic is notable due to the station being one of the main peripheric radio stations of France. It's part of the radio history. Universalis (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Universalis: It's good you express an opinion here but could you please provide evidence of its notability that supports your claims, per WP:N? This will help the decision making process. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, for editors arguing to Keep, you need to highlight sources in the article or that you have located that can help establish GNG notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for ["Radio Océan" "Atlantic 2000" -wikipedia] in google news and google books yielded nothing indepth. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Defunct but lasted sufficiently and received sufficient coverage to show it was an historically notable radio, broadcast across 3 countries and important in the Basque Country (greater region) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 French sources on the page....to which one can add https://www.media-radio.info/radiodiffusion/index.php?radiodiffusion=Espagne&id=351&cat_id=1 https://www.annuairedelaradio.fr/europe/espagne/ ; this for verification: http://radioatlantic2000.free.fr/history Also significant coverage in Rocchi, J. (1975). La télévision malade du pouvoir ; Urteaga, E. (2004), Les journalistes locaux: fragilisation d'une profession, Harmattan; and ( same author) Urteaga, E. (2005). Les médias en Pays Basque: histoire d'une mutation, Mare & Martin. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas most wanted playing cards

AfDs for this article:

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

It's been six months since this was last discussed and I don't find any new sourcing, beyond what was discussed at the last AfD. This appears to have been a SYNTH from various bits of news coverage... While you can find mentions of a "hit list" of sorts that the Israeli army has, it doesn't appear to ~~be a playing card deck~~ be coverage of a playing card deck. I've not seen coverage of this concept this past year, so nothing has changed, notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SYNTH does not apply. The GNG and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE do apply. The GNG has been established and hence the article was kept in the past. See this Makor Rishon source from July 2024 as proof for CONTINUED INTEREST. gidonb (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better source, do you have more? Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also negative recent attention around an error in the card deck. Article from May 2024 in Yediot Ahronot. 04:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete Replaying my !vote from the last discussion, it was a crap article then and it's still a crap article now, no-one is interested in this rubbish. Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator claims these are not physical playing cards. They are very physical. See for example here to see many pictures. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the statement, it's the lack of sources... Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the statement above with the nomination, there is visual evidence, stored on Wikipedia Commons, and included in the article itself, of this being a real playing card deck. Moreover, as the individuals originally identified in the deck of cards continue to have changes to the status column of the article, the lasting effect and import of the cards continues to grow (WP:EFFECT). Coining (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I mean there doesn't appear to be coverage of the cards. I know they exist, we've seen photos of them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the nomination; due to a lack of sources, not the fact that the exist, that we're debating here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We won't know of lasting impact until maybe years from now.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a CRYSTALBALL, doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, Why is that CRYSTALBALL? VR says that we should consider lasting effect in the future. That's policy, not crystal ball! Importance of a subject is always relevant. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting effects in the future means we don't know how important it is now. We aren't here to predict the future [[25]]. We need reliable sources that discuss these cards in detail, which we don't seem to have. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When these cards came out in 2023, these received a lot of media attention, satisfying the GNG. In 2024, which isn't nearly over, the deck received again much attention.[26][27] VR says that we would need to check this also in the future. That has nothing to do with crystal balling. It's just how WP rolls. gidonb (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really sure what VR has to do with the sources, what do you think about them Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have shared my opinion elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coining. Andre🚐 23:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American regions by life expectancy

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

Prod contested. List is original research and synthesis - extracted data in form not present in secondary, reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, United States of America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my point of view at the article's talk page. Though the data in the source database were filtered and simple calculations were made, these transformations are obvious and easily verified. All data in the Wikipedia's page are in the source database or can be easily obtained by an obvious mathematical operation.

It's like retelling a text in your own words. When a Wikipedia editor retells a text, he does not retell the whole text but only a part of it. The same way, a Wikipedia editor has not obligation to use necessarily all records in an original dataset - only a part of it can be used. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any need for this type of list . Agletarang (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete by according to my arguments on the article's talk page. Рулин (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, User:Lady3mlnm and User:Рулин, I assume you are arguing for Keep here? How would you respond to the nomination statement? Please put your arguments here rather than on the article talk page so the discussion is in one place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. What an odd page. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the request of Liz, this is summary of what I've written above and at the article's talk page.

This is a stand-alone list based on an authoritative reliable secondary source (that we can assume itself based on set of independent reliable sources), which has significant coverage and independent of the subject. Source of information is given and data can be verified. Filtering of records based on obvious criteria, routine calculations, and sorting based on indicated logical principle can't be considered as original research. Users are free to apply their own sorting by the table tool. There is also no contradiction with WP:NOT. So though the article is not great, I don't see enough reasons for deletion.

The list contains evaluation of life expectancy in regions of many countries that doesn't have their separate pages about this topic. The principle of region comparison is not an original research by itself, but presentation of data, within the framework of the encyclopedia tools, that allows people to do their own independent conclusion. So I consider the article as valuable page of Wikipedia. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a confusion here between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. The material that the article is based upon is not a secondary source, it is a database (Global Data Lab). That database offers no: analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (WP:SECONDARY). Notability of all articles is dependent on the existence of secondary sourcing. The author of the article has extracted information from the database to create the article, hence original research. There is no indication that the database in and of itself is notable. There is no secondary sourcing which compares the subnational administrative units of North America by life expectancy. I did request for secondary sources to be added which would satisfy WP:NLIST, but none were identified. I did find a source which compares subnational units of the USA and Canada (Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Four Volume Set: A Treatise in Population p.210), but could find nothing else. FWIW, previous consensus has been to delete these list types of subnational unit articles in the absence of specific sourcing satisfying NLIST: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first-level administrative divisions by country. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a very useful (if not shocking) list. This seems to be well-sourced on the referenced Wikipedia pages. I'm not seeing what the issue is. Nfitz (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "see also" on this page lists pages that cover this information better than is found here. Some have considerable analysis, some less; some have a large number of references, some only a few. However, it does seem to me that it only makes sense to create a list for all of North America if there is some interesting comparative data beyond just the numbers. If some should be added, then this list might be useful. Also, this is all very recent (2019-) so it lacks real historical data. Lamona (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NLIST. Databases like the source are not secondary and we do not have evidence that this particular intersectional ranking has been the topic of SIGCOV, so the grouping is also OR. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per JoelleJay. Fails WP:NLIST due to lack of SIGCOV as a group. Also much of this list is redundant of List of North American countries by life expectancy and country-specific lists of regions (e.g. List of U.S. states and territories by life expectancy). Those lists may or may not also fail NLIST, but are not the topic of this discussion. Frank Anchor 02:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Plainly stated: an article based entirely on a single primary source is the same as original research, and in this case is borderline copyright infringement. You’re just repeating the same data, but in a fancy table. That’s why we require three or more independent and reliable sources with deep discussions of the data. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. Consensus is trending towards merging these by-position lists to a single comprehensive one, perhaps with fewer listed per position, as a viable ATD. I am also closing the other nominated by-position lists similarly. Editors are welcome to BOLDly merge the lists mentioned here but not currently nominated, or start a discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders

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

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references consist of an MLB rulebook which is a primary source and baseball-reference.com which is a stats database; neither count towards notability. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search came up empty; hence, delete. Left guide (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders. Also, this is covered by Baseball Almanac and I'd imagine baseball-reference though I haven't seen a direct source. Conyo14 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Are those sources secondary and WP:SIGCOV for this topic though? Mere statistical database entries don't count towards notability; the sources need to provide fleshed out prose and context directly about this list topic. Left guide (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for a !keep. Just merely pointing out the references that are to be pointed here. Baseball Almanac is considered reliable and covers the statistical aspect. Beyond that, I'd say each record is likely to house some WP:SIGCOV from the player article. However, the grouping may not suffice for deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Well can you please provide more specific usable links (the Baseball Almanac link you supplied comes up as an error without rendering anything meaningful) or quotes of the source material so they can be judged and examined by the community? I'm afraid your argument is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES as of the present moment. Notability is demonstrated via evidence of sufficient source material, not the belief or assertion of such. WP:Articles for deletion/List of NBA career ejections leaders is a current example of evidence-based WP:NLIST notability being demonstrated in a similar context (sports stats list). Left guide (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it did, let me fix the link. My argument is more like, "watch out". Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Yes, I was already aware of the bundled right-fielder AfD as someone who participated there. I was referring to this Baseball Almanac external link you provided, which incurs a 404-type error. Left guide (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time, Left guide. Conyo14 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Is this the Baseball Almanac source you've been alluding to? If so, it unfortunately doesn't contribute towards WP:NLIST for this particular topic. It has a table with a collection of random outfielder double play stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with secondary prose about three random factoids, but nothing about this list topic specifically. Left guide (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forgot to mention in the nom that the content within the article's two sources don't discuss this list topic at all. They're being used in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion to verify tangential details. And this in the external links section is not secondary or SIGCOV; raw stats tables don't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all in set Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Left guide: I'm not !voting here because the nom is out of balance in my opinion. Would you consider bundling all of these:
If all of these were nominated for deletion or merger into a new List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders article, I would support that. As it is, to only nom catcher, pitcher and outfielder is a no-go for me. Pasting this comment on the catcher, pitcher and outfielder AFDs. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BX,

First it's too late to make this a bundled nomination. This has to happen at the beginning of an AFD discussion, not midway through. Second, a number of these articles are already being discussed in AFD discussions. They should appear as pink links. You can voice your opinions at these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have commented at all that were nom'd. Don't have the pink thing installed tho. That's why I quasi-voted as a no-go for me. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I didn't even know how many were involved. I would, if Left Guide were okay with it, withdrawing our respective noms to create one mega bundle. Conyo14 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the best way forward IMO. TYVM. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14 and BX: As Liz (an experienced regular AfD admin) says above, we're past the point of no return in withdrawing or bundling these even if we wanted to, since there are extant non-keep !votes from other community members in basically all of these. I actually plan to nominate the remaining "double plays by position" articles sometime soon, but it takes precious time to do a thorough good-faith WP:BEFORE search for each individual article to see if there's anything encyclopedically salvageable, and other commitments both on Wikipedia and in real life means the research can't always be easily done all at once. In any case, each nomination should be treated on its own merits. Left guide (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like there is a growing consensus to Merge this article to, I think, List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders but I'd like to see confirmation of this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hits Radio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Radio London

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

Non-notable radio station. Lacks WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This is just a single transmitter carrying programming for a network. Per previous similar AfD nominations e.g. [28] it should be redirected to Hits Radio. As an additional comment, all of these regional Hits Radio articles are a mess and need a tidy up. Individual transmitters for Hits Radio are not notable, but the original stations (e.g. Radio City, Hallam FM) were. I don't know why someone was so excited to move the articles. Flip Format (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for the Redirect suggestion, I'm gathering to Hits Radio
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hits Radio Outside a few unnoticeable things to the average listener, it's been an autofeed for its entire existence. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hits Radio We have precedent, including a prior topic RfC for Greatest Hits Radio, that stations of this type do not have independent notability. The stations that are notable are the pre-rollup ILR stations, which is not the case here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Seung-il (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. There are corresponding articles in 13 languages, but none of them provide any significant coverage of him, especially the Korean Wikipedia which would help otherwise. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simione001: You've nominated well over 150 historic North Korean footballers for deletion and seem to near-exclusively target them – where do you do your WP:BEFORE searches for them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've obviously been going to North Korea and searching through newspaper archives. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 and @WikiOriginal-9: Simone not only nominated sportspeople articles from North Korea, but I saw they've recently nominated those from other Asian countries such as Middle East (e.g. Husam Hourani). If both of you want to know what happened some time ago, read Jogourney and Spiderone's replies to Simone's talk page titled "AfDs".

My WP:BEFORE mostly revolves around news media on the article's language as well as Google search. If the source is not in English or my native language (Indonesian), I use Google Translate to see whether or not it contains significant coverage... or the fact that the person participates in event (e.g. Club debut). I can assume Simone just look that such articles fail WP:GNG in their own appearances without searching on Google or news media.

For countries that don't use Latin alphabet, finding significant information about something to add on Wikipedia might be certainly difficult. This is a problem for North Korea-related sportspeople articles since it doesn't have any trusted news media. From my editing experience, I see the exact same calibre format/reference as North Korea with, say, Slovakia-related articles, since most news coverage are paywalled. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can assume Simone just look that such articles fail WP:GNG in their own appearances without searching on Google or news media. – so, basically, there's no BEFORE at all for these nominations... (and I get that it's absurdly difficult to find North Korean newspaper sources, but I'd think that something should be done before trying to delete well over half of the footballers in a nation's history...) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid just Googling isn't good enough sometimes, especially for a pre-internet topic like this. Even for a topic from 2010 or so, Googling may not be good enough. It doesn't take too long for some links to go dead on the internet. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can an editor provide a link to the proposed Redirect target article? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#North_Korea Simione001 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001: You can answer that, but not what your BEFORE search encompasses? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Mok

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2006. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Poetry, Ireland, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
as a likely GNG failure. BLP written by the subject of the BLP. While the article has been improved over the years, the goals of our encyclopedia were so alien for the creator to not provide her date of birth. User:Dr_vulpes says there are multiple reviews. I did not see true reviews. Happy to be pointed to such, if in existence! I see articles about her books, in which she tells about these. Also interviews and passing mentions. The author is accessible - kudos to her - but it does not assist the independence of the sources. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her date of birth isn't available but her year of birth can be found in multiple databases. I've also added another review of her book. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the year of birth to the article and provide links to the real reviews here? gidonb (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my delete vote after improvements in the article. gidonb (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We now have enough sources to establish notability per NBIO. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Sober

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

Been tagged for sourcing issues since 2011. Not clear if subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is unsourced, reads like a resume, and relies on coattailing more notable acts ("She has performed with...", with nothing to back it up). Awards don't even meet notability. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok to delete. Technically there are archived bios linked in the "External links" section...but what we're missing which we would expect are reviews. Checked ProQuest, which had zero relevant hits. Searched Bing as well and turned up another (more recent) artist bio and a Novi List article about a three-day vocal masterclass she held in March 2024. By far one of the most interesting projects she has been involved in was in the world premiere of the cantata The Diary of Anne Frank, which was broadcast on TV Brasil in 2012, and there are some associated concert listings, but not finding any reviews. The subject of this article appears to be falling short of both WP:SINGER and even WP:BASIC due to the overall lack of substantive discussion about her in secondary sources. Please ping me if additional sources are found. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lika Bibileishvili

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

Non-notable classical musician. Feels WP:TOOSOON. Page lacks WP:RS and so does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Could not find any RS via WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few hits on Google news and books, but nothing in newspapers. Odd. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stout

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted and salted. This new creation must not escape review. Most of the sources are written in a clearly promotional tone and hence are probably not independent of the subject. As one egregious example, the first and last sources are clearly variations of the same press release - starting with In the dynamic arena of contemporary art, few names resonate as profoundly as Marko Stout vs. In the dynamic world of contemporary art, few names shine as brightly as Marko Stout‘s.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Medicine, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again please. 4th nomination! fails WP:ARTIST. He not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by a SPA with all of 20 edits. Clearly promotional, and at this point a real nuisance. References are purposely deceptive (i.e. listing as "Cosmopolitan" when it's actually a Cosmo knock-off in Dubai, etc.). I don't understand how someone with as few edits could create a supposedly salted article. Does someone know how to look into this? Lamona (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They created it at the redundant Marko Stout (aritist). An admin moved it over to the base name, probably without realizing it was salted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polyhedral (disambiguation)

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

all WP:PARTIAL. fgnievinski (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are all WP:PTMs and the user is better off using Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Baynes

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

Non-notable manager. A brief mention in Ebony magazine doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Spaceflight, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can confirm his mathematics degree from Howard University, and various US Gov't documents confirm his position at NASA. There's a wonderful local (Caswell county) article about him and his wife in their later years, and he self-published a memoir in 2020. Unfortunately none of this adds up to notability, even though this is clearly someone with an interesting life story. Lamona (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in-depth independent coverage. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. There is not enough proof of notability (I wish there was more). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Sorina Munteanu

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that it passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Romania. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found an additional source here. I don't think that's enough for WP:NBIO though. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:38, 24 September 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, asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cocobb8’s new source, and also this both of which cover her and her career in depth. Cocobb8, any chance you’re a Romanian speaker so you can add the information from those sources to the article. While the standard is “sources exist in the world” not “sources are currently cited in the article”, having them in there might stop this happening again…

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdum4242, did you notice that Cocobb8 might have found the source but they aren't arguing to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I did notice that, but also thought that was because the standard was that there needed to be more than one solid source, from different outlets, which was why they were unsure? When you put theirs together with mine, together with the source cited in the article as currently written, you get three seperate sources, focused on her rather than passing mentions, separated by 8 years giving coverage over time? Also, since the deletion recommendation was on BLP grounds, I checked the applicable guidelines and they were that the article ticked off

The article doesn’t seem like Original Research, it seems to be written in a NPOV, and nothing in it was contentious or derogatory that I could tell. That just leaves Verifiability, and passing notability, with WP:MUSIC suggesting international touring was a strong sign of potential notability. Verifiability would depend on whether the sources the information was found in were reliable, and… they seem to be? Although not speaking Romanian I had to rely on Google translate there.

Am I missing something obvious? (and also thanks again for taking the time to walk me through this, when I can see from all your work on this project that you’re super busy). Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242, the strong sign of notability is good. Are you suggesting it is enough? They're not quite the same thing. While you might decide to hold off on nominating an article for deletion because there is a "strong sign of potential notability", by the time we're at AfD what we want to see is actual evidence of notability. You're welcome to argue that the evidence we have is indeed enough evidence, or that it's close enough to "enough evidence" that the strong potential for further sources clinches it for you. Those are valid AfD positions. But "there isn't enough here yet, but I bet there is more out there" is usually not taken as grounds for a keep. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Not suggesting that it’s enough, just running through the steps step by step. If it had failed WP:NMUSIC completely I’d have stopped there. And if the articles only mentioned local performances inside Romania, I would err on the side of her not being notable, because it’s likely at that stage that there are no sources I’m missing, whereas a verified decade long career in numerous countries, there’s a much greater chance there are other sources out there in the world. Likewise, while they don’t strictly count for notability, there were 40-50 sources with passing mentions of her performances / longer mentions from non-independent sources as well as the three independent sources that I think DO count - the sheer number of them, again over years, makes me think it’s likely that there are better sources out there that I’m just missing, especially since google isn’t great for non-English sources / a lot of arts sources are physical rather than online. Which, again, isn’t proof, but if I hadn’t seen all those extra sources, I’d have been more likely to err on the side of her not being notable, assuming I had found what was out there. Which is why I voted delete for other article which lacked all this. GIVEN all that, I was arguing along the lines you suggested - the three sources seem like enough evidence for me, especially with the added strong potential for further sources. But I’m not dogmatic about it - this was an orphaned nomination, so I thought I would at least take a look to avoid a delete close / re-listing for lack of discussion. If anyone else wants to argue deletion, I’m all for them to do so, discussion to reach consensus is the whole point of the exercise after all. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Hashem

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

BLP of the founder of a religious sect. The sect itself appears to be notable but it does not seem that the leader himself is. I think a redirect to Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light would probably be best. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Egypt, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok which three of these do you think provide the best in-depth coverage? Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Article only cited one source almost which shows they still need to meet WP:GNG to stand alone Tesleemah (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, merge where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Puyŏ languages. No evidence of substantial coverage of the language, distinct from its language family, has come forward. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okjeo language

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

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the amount of references is acceptable for the scope of this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn’t seem to be much more that could be added to the article, but what is in there is well sourced from scholarly articles. Well sourced articles being short / having differences of opinion between scholars is not reason for deletion so long as neutral viewpoint is maintained, and all opinions mentioned.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that all of these keep !votes are based on superficially measuring text and counting references, but have not engaged with the deletion rationale given above. Kanguole 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, “I disagree with what the scholars in the field say” isn’t a proper rationale for deletion though? If you have other scholars in the field that you know disagree, and they have published their work in reliable sources, then the article might breach Neutrality standards, but that’s something you edit into the article, making sure you cite your conflicting sources, not a reason for deletion Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing like "I disagree with what the scholars in the field say" in the deletion rationale, which makes a completely different argument. Perhaps the offhand remark "(controversial)"? But that was about Goguryeo language, which is a different topic from this one. Kanguole 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very very weak keep - While it's true that much of the article does seem to restate information that can be found on the Puyŏ languages page, the only reason that I would vote keep is because the Okjeo language page elaborates a bit more information than on Puyŏ languages. (especially the comment about its relationship to the Nivkh languages).

Now I'm not sure if the extra details on Okjeo language merit its having a separate article. I would consider voting redirect if the extra tidbits of information were rewritten into the Puyŏ languages page itself. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MetropolitanIC: I've added Janhunen's view to Puyŏ languages, but he discusses only Buyeo (maybe Nivkh/Amuric) and Goguryeo (maybe Tungusic), and does not mention Okjeo. Reference [10] is a Korean translation of part of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms, an ancient source that would be OR for us to interpret. Reference [12] (actually Miyake, not Robbeets) discusses Goguryeo and does not mention Okjeo. Kanguole 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If keep voters could more clearly refute the deletion rationale, that would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close As per the nominee. It would seem that consensus is already in favour of the article. Doha Dear (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doha Dear, it's the nominator, not the "nominee" and they are arguing for Deletion, not Keeping the article so your vote doesn't make any sense. This is not surprising given your lack of experience (20 edits). Maybe edit articles for a while before taking on deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I meant to say "as per the editors seeking to keep the article." Sometimes, people make mistakes. Doha Dear (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No clear rationale for keep presented yet. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puyŏ languages. There is plenty of coverage, but none of it is substantial. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, perhaps partially merge to Puyŏ languages. Based on the article, there is almost nothing (sourceable) to say about this language, whose very existence is only presumed. It is therefore better covered in an article with a broader scope. The "keep" opinions above do not address this issue, which was raised in the nomination; they should therefore be disregarded. Sandstein 09:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion aside from the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kushtaka

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

The only sources (apart from two TV episodes) appear to be fictional. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alaska and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify — Do you mean fictional works? Based on only seeing "fictional" in your rationale, I went over the listed sources and they clearly exist. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works of fiction. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:GTEST, the latter a search for the alternate spelling Kóoshdaa káa, which provided the mainstream sources below.

Retain the additional citations needed flag and allow the article to wait for an editor to improve it. 5Q5|^✉ 12:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the current state of referencing is not great, this is a real and notable topic as supported by the sources listed above (and the TV documentaries). The nomination is arguing solely on the current state of the article. A WP:BEFORE search, however, is a step required from the nominator by the deletion process. To get commentary on this search would be immensly helpful to all participants. Daranios (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I found sod all, but then some of the above seem to use variant spellings, and it seems (from the above sources), it also needs a renames, as the common name seems to be Kóoshdaa káa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Thanks for clarifying. As I said, any details on the course of the search are helpful, but I understand that in some instances there is just nothing to report. But then good that we have the discussion and different authors chip in, the process is working :-). Daranios (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THen the fixing should be done now, and not as a condition of keeping. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: The sources are there, so anyone interested can start the fixing. On the other hand noone specifically is required to do so, however, and there is no deadline. Many, many, many things should be fixed on Wikipedia, the earlier the better, and the issues here are just one of them. I believe now that notability concerns are allayed this is not a bad start-class article. As long as there is no evidence to the contrary I assume the description could be verified by the two TV documentaries already listed. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the above list of research links to the article's talk page 5Q5|^✉ 11:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sourcing. I think a stubification may be in order after the AfD closes, however. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eklashpur High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion in May 2024 resulted in redirect. Since that time, IPs and another user have attempted to circumvent that discussion and restore the page so here we are. References do not show how this meets notability guidelines and cannot find anything online that shows this meeting WP:NCORP. Based on the redirect removals, I don't think a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on an IPs attempt to mask the last deletion discussion, I would be inclined to say there is a conflict of interest behind the creation and continuous attempts at redirecting. Pinging @Jfire: and @SafariScribe: who were the editors involved in the previous deletion discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to List of educational institutions in Noakhali#Secondary schools I'm changing to~~ Delete based on Worldbruce argument: Nothing has changed since the last AFD. It's an exact recreation of the article which was redirected last time. Still doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Can we please also protect the page once this is finished so other IPs can't circumvent consensus again. TarnishedPath^talk 03:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I purely understand the need for redirecting per WP:ATD, but since we've seen turning the redirect into an article even after a deletion discussion, I think deletion is the appropriate thing to do. In a real sense, this article crossed no border— not notable—and I don't think it would in the nearest future. However, if a protection is appropriate, let the redirect be. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the pragmatic choice after weighing the disruption caused by editors removing the redirect four times without discussion, explanation, or improvement against the redirect's very slight benefit to readers. Anyone interested in the school is far more likely to search bn.wikipedia for it. If they do search here, they're likely to have enough basic local knowledge for it to be obvious to them from the name of the school which upazila (sub-district) the school is in, and that's all the redirect would tell them. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khetasar

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

This is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK of Rathore rebellion (1679–1707). Such articles led to duplication. Also, out of the three sources, 2nd one inot a WP:RS. It is some personal commentary written by someone associated with the Kingdom. Hence it should be deleted and content, if something found relevant should be merged into the main article or the Durgadas Rathore. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the article being a case of WP: REDUNDANTFORK. TH1980 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. It looks like a rough consensus that this subject doesn't meet GNG or NMMA. If anyone wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review (rather than just moving it back to main space), contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Battle

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject has been nominated for AfD before and resulted in deletion. Still not yet meet GNG or NMMA notability requirements, Sources are mainly fight announcements and results which are considered routine reports. Subject fails to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in depth and indetails and not only passing mentioned for verification. Cassiopeia talk 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Missouri. Cassiopeia talk 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these refs (1, 2, 3, 4) are enough to support GNG Nswix (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nswix 1, 2 they are routine sport reports and [29], 4 they are al routine sport report and not independent as they are interview pieces. Routine sport reports (fight announcements and results) can not be contribute to GNG or NMMA requirements to have a page in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 05:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still doesn't appear to have much media coverage. Was in France fighting, but it's only mentioned [30], [31] in passing. Not enough coverage for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the article, it is well done and subject getting more and more attention. However, he is #25 in the Worldwide MMA Rankings on Tapology [32]. I don't think the subject currenlty passes WP:MMA, but an argument could be made that he passes WP:GNG. I will wait to vote. Lekkha Moun (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You only have to pass one. If every fighter had to pass NMMA, there'd only be a few hundred fighters pages. Nswix (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - NMMA use Fight Matrix and not Tapology. Fighter needs to be ranked top 10 to pass NMMA. Cassiopeia talk 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's why I said subject doesn't pass WP:MMA. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes I know, that's why I mentioned WP:GNG. Subject needs to pass one guideline. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not meet WP:NMMA. His current ranking is #73 and he has never defeated a fighter ranked in the top 100. The article's references seem to be mainly fight reports and announcements, along with some database entries. I may have missed something, so I am not voting currently. I would ask that anyone claiming he meets WP:GNG use WP:THREE and let me know the good sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at more of the sources and I am still seeing mainly routine sports reporting that would be standard for any pro fighter. I remain open to being convinced that he meets WP:GNG, but the coverage I looked at it is insufficient. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Very likely to meet WP:GNG in the future but WP:TOOSOON for now. –Filmforme (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iniesta (footballer, born 1992)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nominator could also add, like, "I searched on Google and only the Spanish footballer came up." ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 3 October 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.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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. No actual deletion rationale has been provided. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed oil misinformation

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

I am nominating the article Seed oil misinformation for deletion due to significant violations of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, particularly in the title and the overall tone of the article.

Title Bias: The title itself, "Seed oil misinformation," is particularly problematic and presupposes that any concerns or criticisms about the oils are automatically "misinformation." This is inherently biased and frames the entire article in a way that dismisses opposing views. A more neutral title would not take a definitive stance on the issue before even addressing the content of the article.
One-Sided Arguments: The article is primarily focused on discrediting the health concerns surrounding the oils and conveys the message that opposition to the oils is part of a conspiracy. This fails to acknowledge that there may be legitimate health concerns raised by some experts or individuals regarding the oils, including their potential role in inflammation and metabolic issues. This one-sided perspective also neglects to address concerns that industry or food processors may be putting the interest of profits above public health.
Dismissal of Legitimate Health Concerns: While the article casts doubt on health claims against the oils, it does not provide balanced coverage of the scientific debate. By labeling all criticisms as "misinformation," in the very title, the article skews heavily in favor of defending one side, ignoring the fact that some health professionals and researchers have raised legitimate concerns about the high omega-6 content, the harms of consuming easily oxidized oils, and the potential negative effects of consuming certain vegetable oils in excess.
Not a Neutral Presentation of Information: A neutral article would present the arguments for and against these oils without taking sides. Instead, this article seems intent on portraying the entire opposition as 'misinformation' or conspiracy-driven, especially considering the title, without giving due weight to evidence or legitimate concerns raised by those on the other side of the debate.

In conclusion, the title and content are both so heavily biased that simple editing may not be sufficient to bring this article in line with Wikipedia’s standards. For these reasons, I propose deleting this article. If editors believe the topic is worthy of coverage, it should be rebuilt from the ground up starting with a neutral title and perspective that fairly represents all viewpoints. ~ Mellis (talk) 00:26, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this article was initially PRODed by User:69.123.64.3(1 October 2024), for the following reason: Neutral Point of View. See Discussion at Talk:Seed_oil_misinformation~ Mellis (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the premise of this AfD is strongly flawed. ignoring the fact that some health professionals and researchers by this logic, HIV/AIDS denialism, should be called "HIV/AIDS controversy" because some health professionals and researchers supported this position when the majority of the scientific community didn't. During COVID misinformation was widely spread by medical professionals like Peter A. McCullough. That didn't mean it wasn't misinformation. This the appeal to authority fallacy which ignores the sources in the article which say that the expert consensus is that "seed oils" (as nebulous as that category is) are largely safe and that the current claims are misinformation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another source from the American Heart Association calling the claims bunk [33]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @User:Hemiauchenia Its very important to point out that the credibility of the AHA is significantly questioned and doubted in this topic due to its significant corporate funding, particularly from processed vegetable oil producers. The American Heart Association receives incredibly significant funding from corporate interests, for this reason the AHA is a biased 'authority' due to their source of funding. The American Heart Association (AHA) has received funding from processed vegetable oil producers, including Procter & Gamble, the maker of Crisco and other processed oils, in 1948: The AHA received $1.75 million from Proctor & Gamble.[34][35], The AHA then recommended that people replace butter with vegetable oil or Crisco. More recently Bayer, the owner of LibertyLink soybeans, pledged up to $500,000 to the AHA. [36] Food manufactures pay the American Heart Association to show the AHA logo on their packaging. The food manufacturers push profits into the AHA every single day though this mechanism. The AHA is not credible source of information on this topic as they are significantly financed by these corporate mechanisms where the food industry pays AHA to endorse their processed foods.~ Mellis (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Its [sic] very important to point out that the credibility of the AHA is significantly questioned and doubted in this topic due to its significant corporate funding" ← this is just howling conspiracism of the type that infects the antiscience movement, and any sources (if there actually are any) 'questioning and doubting' the AHA for this reason are from fools. While Wikipedia might report on stuff like this (see Big Pharma conspiracy theories) its policies prevent it from indulging them, Instead we reflect what reputable WP:MEDORGS like the AHA say as accepted knowedlege. Bon courage (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the title, Seed oil controversy was changed to Seed oil misinformation per this diff. Also, remember that WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, meaning that the weight given to viewpoints are to be reflective of their overall ratio among reliable sources, not simply fifty-fifty coverage.

This article looks like it intends to describe a fad diet (see its inclusion in the Fad Diets template as a high-carb diet), but doesn't have very much information on the rules or rationale for it to be a diet, even as it goes about rebutting them. The section on hexane is a good example. It says, without a citation, that proponents call the oils hazardous because of solvents, and then has four citations debunking that vaguely summarized claim. The article on the Paleolithic diet is a good example of NPOV for a fad diet, laying out the principles, health claims, and medical research around it. An article titled Paleo diet controversy or Paleo diet misinformation would be better served as a subsection in a main article, such as at Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects.

A follow-up question is whether the seed oil claims (or diet) are cohesive and notable enough to have a page dedicated to them. It's hard to confirm notability when what is being argued against is unclear. Azn bookworm10 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sails past WP:GNG and the reasons given for deletion are spurious. Misuse of Afd. Bon courage (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Azn bookworm10 & Bon courage: Seed oil controversy was a much better title that at least didn't immediately call some people's health concerns 'misinformation'. The balance of Fatty acid ratio in food and oxidized linoleic acid metabolites are serious health topics, and excessive eating of Omega 6 has health implications.~ Mellis (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. For the same reason we don't have Holocaust controversy but "denial" or Moon landing controversy but "conspiracy theories". This seed oil stuff is BS and there is no rational source saying otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is plenty of research that is credible and questions the health claims of Omega 6 heavy vegetable oils. You just don't consider them. [37][38][39][40] there are hundreds of credible research articles and you would ignore all of them if you were presented with them.~ Mellis (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The topic of this article is misinformation; which is by definition BS. Those sources are irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      
      Individual studies like these are primary sources under Wikipedia's biomedical information sourcing regime. Please see WP:MEDPRI. The gold standard is either a comprehensive literature review (cited in the article as Marklund, Wu, Imamura, & Del Gobbo (2019)) or a formal statement by a leading academic body (cited in the article as Harris, Mozaffarian, Rimm, & Kris-Etherton (2009)). — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      
      (#1) is the only potential usable source. (#2) is MDPI paper co-authored by misinformation peddler Joseph Mercola, (#3) and (#4) are primary animal studies in mice and piglets, which are a complete and utter fail of WP:MEDRS. This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel and is an embarrassing display of your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy.
      
      Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This nomination was obviously written with AI. For all the LLM word salad, there's no coherent or policy based reason given for deletion. Pinguinn 🐧 02:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god I thought you were exaggerating about the LLM usage but wow AfD is only going to get more backlogged if it gets filled with this stuff. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just AfD. Fringe areas (it seems in particular) are gaining litigious editors running LLMs. Brace for a Hellscape! Bon courage (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I'm aware and have been helping with WikiProject AI Cleanup where I have time, but at least it's easier to revert nonsense additions to articles. AfDs take up so much time and effort from editors and admins with all the back-and-forth and the seven-day time limit. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the format is very suspiciously LLMy, but I wanted to give the author the benefit of the doubt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is NPOV a valid deletion rationale in this manner? Given that it passes GNG (multiple reliable sources mention this as misinformation including an additional source found above by Hemiauchenia), then shouldn't any NPOV violation mean that the editors proposing deletion should instead be citing reliable sources to balance the article? — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The title does not have a neutral point of view, is this not obvious? It conveys that potentially legitimate health concerns could be 'misinformation'. Excessive Omega 6 intake is known to cause obesity and chronic disease in animal models.~ Mellis (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, this is an article about misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I disagree. This article and its title are calling out health concerns raised by some legitimate doctors and experts on the topic of these fatty acids and specifically labeling those concerns 'misinformation', in a biased way.~ Mellis (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Please read the list of deletion rationales and note that supposedly non-neutral titles are not listed. AfD is not the venue to discuss such an issue with an article. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 400 word LLM-generated AfD (with no valid deletion rationale) is completely inappropriate. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid deletion rationale given. Also crap LLM writing of an invalid rationale designed to spread the very FUD misinformation that the article exposes. And any claims that it need to be edified to include the fringe claims that fail MEDRS, the only people making these false claims about seed oils, are doing so because they have their own oil to sell you: snake oil. oknazevad (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I stand by my comments that the title of this article comes off as offensively one-sided. If it isn't going to be deleted I strongly feel it needs to be renamed. There are researchers who have devoted their lives to the study of chronic disease who believe fatty acids are playing a role. A title such as "Vegetable oil health debate" would come of as much more neutral. Scientific skepticism is supposed to be a good thing in society, immediately calling one side of the arguments 'misinformation' is throwing out the possibility to even consider scientific evidence that argues vegetable oils could be contributing to chronic disease. It's already known high fat diets and processed foods contribute to chronic disease, heart disease, and obesity. ~ Mellis (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mechanism for proposing a change of name is WP:RM, not AfD. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD has been mentioned on Reddit. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They all get mentioned on Reddit it seems, that's their option to list them. I just ignore them, reddit is a pit for anything and everything these days. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG. And since someone (most likely the nominator) has canvassed on Reddit (per Dan's comment above), should we put the Not a ballot template somewhere? MiasmaEternal☎ 04:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone was way ahead of me on the latter. MiasmaEternal☎ 04:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not canvassed anywhere, I have nothing to do with that Reddit post. I did not submit or contribute to any discussion execept this page right here. ~ Mellis (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is one sided and contains sources that dont corroborate the information in the body.Sydpresscott (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of obvious notability of topic. Perceived bias in article content or title is not a reason for deletion. The talk page where these things should be sorted out is thataway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a topic. The article is a collection of miscellaneous false beliefs that people have held about seed oils. We don't, and shouldn't, have an article listing miscellaneous false beliefs about football players. Maproom (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NPOV is not valid deletion rationale per the above, and it lends little credence to your arguments to post an LLM-generated dot point list. Additionally, the article is called seed oil misinformation—that is to say, there is no implication that the article decries legitimate concerns, only that it discusses misinformation. If there are legitimate concerns that you feel are unfairly classed as misinformation, you should point this out on the talk page instead of nominating the article for deletion. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said, the deletion rationale seems to have been largely generated by an LLM which raises significant questions whether any human editor even entirely supports it, i.e. do they support that everything said is actually a problem with our article based on their understanding of our policies and guidelines? But anyway, even if it's not LLM, most of the points there even if entirely correct, the reasons listed are not valid reasons for deletion but cleanup of various kinds e.g. WP:RM and just general editing. It's hard to argue WP:TNT applies. So if there is no valid deletion rationale given in the opening, I can only go by the other supporters. User:Sydpresscott makes the same mistake as the opening rationale. User:Maproom's rationale at least is a valid reason for deletion. But I'd disagree that it applies here. It's clear from the sources that seed oils are a prominent target of misinformation such that many sources have address said misinformation. So this is much inline with Vaccine misinformation, COVID-19 misinformation, COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, 5G misinformation, Misinformation related to abortion, Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, Climate change denial etc. I don't believe the same applies to football players which is a very vague term anyway. (I assume we're at least talking about what is sometimes called soccer rather than other weird sports sometimes called football most of which rarely apply feet to the ball, but still are we talking about professionals or anyone who plays the game or what?) Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Health article and the GQ talk about this issue, seems to pass notability. Could perhaps use a rewrite, but AfD isn't clean up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly, if you're worried about the neutrality of the article, you don't delete it, You should rewrite it, that's literally the point of a wiki... Bring corrections or updates to the article by editing it, yourself. And please don't use LLMs, they don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yung-kil

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Lâm (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea where the person is mentioned. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also a stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 12:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per everyone else in this conversation. Doha Dear (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to DIN 1451. Seems like rough consensus that we don't want an article, and if there's no consensus as to the exact redirect target, I'm going to pick one of the options as an editorial decision and make it RfD's problem. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engschrift

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

Initially PRODed by me, for the following reason:

In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.

Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Transportation, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DIN 1451, by condensing the Austria section into a single sentence and placing it under DIN_1451#Usage_examples (this is sourced - the article's only source refers to this). There is certainly no justification for a standalone article, as the target article provides better coverage for every other aspect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I agree with a merge, since Engschrift (German for "narrow font/script") isn't strictly unique to DIN 1451. EthanL13 | talk 14:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is in this case, as the article makes clear. The term should lead the reader somewhere. Do you have more general redirect targets in mind? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is much to go by – it can't even stick to its own subject in the lead. If it were possible, a disambiguation page (with DIN 1451 as its primary article) would be ideal, with links to Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and FE-Schrift. Just an idea, not sure if it's possible. EthanL13 | talk 09:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disambiguation would be the way to go, given the several different types where the term is accepted as a variant, and the fact that it also represents the original German term for shorthand [41]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything as long as it's deleted. I recommend making it a redirect to Font#Width, the content can be spread out in the relevant articles if it is of any interest. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We now have several closure suggestions including Delete, Merge and Redirect with different target articles mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 September 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, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 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.

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/share/p/nq1AYZaca8ZvRJ6i/?mibextid=oFDknk

[2] ttps://archive.ph/inKeg

[3] ttps://imgur.com/a/GPwc4w5

[1]

[2]

[3]