Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 11	September 13 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Goyal

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

WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not running for one -- but this neither demonstrates that he had sufficient preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor that his candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. No prejudice against recreation after October 5 if he wins, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him into an encyclopedia today. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. While I understand that simply running for a political office may not meet the notability requirements under WP:NPOL, I would like to clarify that Naveen Goyal's notability extends beyond his candidacy. He is the co-founder of CanWinn Foundation, a prominent NGO engaged in substantial social work, particularly in the healthcare sector. Over the years, his efforts have benefited countless individuals through health services, skill development initiatives, and community welfare projects. His contributions as a social worker have received significant media attention and public recognition, making him notable for his social impact.

His candidacy for political office stems from this established reputation in public service. In fact, he is running for office precisely because of his existing notability and influence as a social worker. His candidacy is not what makes him notable, but rather his track record of impactful social work is what has led him to pursue a larger platform to serve the public.

Given these broader contributions to society, I believe Naveen Goyal meets the notability criteria beyond just his candidacy, and therefore, the article should remain. Of course, I am open to improving the article further to highlight these aspects of his work.

Thanks and regards. Anish Semalty (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cofounding an organization isn't a notability freebie either, and a person still has to pass WP:GNG for that. Which means he has to be the subject of a significant volume of coverage in his own right, and it is not enough that his name gets mentioned in articles that aren't about him. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Most sources on the page are poor with passing mention, routine and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I cannot find subject's work as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NPOL. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 22:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he walked barefoot to the congress as an independent, source 16. But that's about all there is for sourcing that I can find as well. I don't find any further sources. This doesn't appear as a notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, per Pharaoh of the Wizards. Has never help party nor public offices. Not even close to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Serving minor office, for example, a state coordinator doesn't justify notability. Same as a person who is yet to be elected into an office as it doesn't meet WP:NPOL. It's more acceptable to recreate when the election has taken place and that the subject is solely the winner. I see this as WP:TOOSOON. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:13, 18 September 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!} 23:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Unadulterated Cat

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

I managed to find one brief newspapers.com review of this book, but nothing else except passing mentions. Redirect to Terry Pratchett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: published three times in English and translated into this many languages, there's surely something? -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I checked newspapers.com, I checked Proquest, I checked EBSCO, I checked Gale, I checked archive.org, I checked google books, news and scholar; I got nothing except for writings mentioning the "real cat" concept in passing and the one short review. It is possible there is coverage under one of the foreign language titles but that's relatively unusual for it to get coverage like that when it didn't in English. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Squeaks by with two significant treatments~~ found at archive.org:

Andrew Butler, An unofficial companion to the novels of Terry Pratchett - 2 full pages -[1]
John Blake, Terry Pratchett : the spirit of fantasy : the life and work of the man behind the magic - 21 paragraphs - [2]

'~~Redirect to Terry Pratchett as an ATD - keeps the page history and redirects are cheap~~

Keep based on sources identified by @[[User:Cunard|]. Oblivy (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Which two pages cover it in depth in the first book? I can't find anything besides a brief mention on page 23. The second one has about two sentences of coverage spread over two pages; IMO not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the first one now. My browser was screwed. That's one source (at about one page). Second one is still not enough to count towards notability IMO, so we're halfway there PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs about a short book isn't nothing but you're entitled to your opinion as am I. Sorry about leaving off the page refs. Oblivy (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy It would be fine if it was actually "two paragraphs" but literally all it says about the book is this:

"Cats feature heavily in two books in Pratchett's back catalogue - in one, perhaps, in a less serious way than in the other. The Unadulterated Cat (illustrated by Gray Jolliffe) is a stream of anecdotes that will please cat lovers everywhere, and perhaps amuse the not-so-cat-stricken too through its excellent artwork." PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I was misreading the reference as being to one of the cats within the Unadulterated Cat rather than a separate book. Oblivy (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Skimming through 10 pages of Google finds either online stores selling the book, or just brief reviews. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning a delete/redirect but I'm too split on this to vote. There's another very short review in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and what appears to be a paper analyzing the Russian translation here, but the machine translation isn't enough for me to determine whether this should count. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Butler, Andrew M., ed. (2007). An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett. Oxford: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 389–390. ISBN 978-1-84645-001-3. ISSN 2782-4543. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Illustrated by Gray Jolliffe, this is a humorous 'non-fiction' volume which discusses the true nature of cats, how they behave and how human beings interact with them, complete with cartoons complementing the text. It was originally published in a large paperback format by Gollancz in an edition of 50,250. A standard paperback followed in 1992, running to 42,750 copies. In 1995 Gollancz printed a version with a new cover—releasing 10,000 copies. Gollancz released it under their Vista imprint in 1996, with another 5,000 copies. In 1999 a version was put out by Orion—an imprint connected to the same company that owned Gollancz—and a hardback finally appeared in 2002, with some additional illustrations. The book has been translated into Czech, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian Korean, Polish, Russian, Serbian, and Swedish, and follows in the tradition of such cartoon books as Simon Bond's One Hundred and One Uses of a Dead Cat (1981) and Charles Platt's How to Be a Happy Cat (1987), the latter also illustrated by Jolliffe. These often serve as stocking fillers, especially for cat lovers, at Christmas."
2. Vorobets, T. A.; Gerdt, E. V.; Lobkova, E. V. (2023). "Проблема интерпретации окказиональных имен собственных в цикле стихов Т. Элиота «Популярная наука о кошках, написанная Старым Опоссумом» и повести Т. Пратчетта «Кот без дураков» и особенности их передачи в русскоязычных переводах" [The problem of interpretation of occasional proper names in T. S. Eliot's cycle of poems "Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats" and T. Pratchett's novel "The Unadulterated Cat" and the peculiarities of their rendering in Russian translations]. Philology. Theory & Practice (in Russian). 16 (6): 1920–1929. doi:10.30853/phil20230291. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The abstract notes: "The paper addresses the ways of naming presented in T. S. Eliot’s poetic cycle and in T. Pratchett’s novella, which are humorous encyclopaedias about the life of cats. The aim of the paper is to determine the peculiarities in the approach to the creation of proper names in these works, as well as to identify the principles of their rendering in Russian translations. The scientific novelty of the study lies in developing a contrastive classification of proper names according to the ways of their creation and in comparing their translation variants. The work discusses in detail the ways of word formation used by T. S. Eliot and T. Pratchett and offers possible interpretations of cat names"
3. Tyce, Cathy (1992-11-26). "Just purr-fect for the cat lover". Kent Evening Post. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "Real cats cause havoc. They refuse the food you buy them then and take the food off your plate. They refuse to use the litter tray and they jump on the knee of the only cat hater in the room. In short, they do exactly what they want. But whatever the feline short-comings, we cat lovers are hooked. And we can't help but recognise our own beloved moggies in Terry Pratchett and Gray Jolliffe's amusing book. They've launched a Campaign for Real Cats—to replace the "fizzy keg cats", the "boring mass-produced cats" with the real, old-fashioned proper kind. If you like cats, you'll laugh ruefully at this funny little book. But if you're not a feline fan, it will just confirm your prejudices."
4. Donald, Colin (2001-12-09). "New Paperbacks. The Unadulterated Cat: Terry Pratchett and Gray Jolliffe". The Daily Yomiuri. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The review notes: "The list of writers fixated on cats is a long and strange one, including T.S. Eliot, Doris Lessing and Anthony Powell. These otherwise somewhat austere personalities have all immortalized their family moggies in written effusions that, to the non-cat lover (especially the dog people) are about as palatable as fur balls, as well as being hilariously out of character. Fans of Terry Pratchett, author of the massively successful fantasy Discworld series, may be surprised that he is a cat maniac too. This collection of funny cat stories, insouciantly illustrated by the cartoonist Gray Jolliffe, is strictly for diehard cat people, who will love it."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Harrison, David (1989-10-28). "A walk on the Wilde side..." Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Most unexpected newcomer is The Unadulterated Cat (Gollancz, £3.99), the complete lowdown on our feline friends from Terry Pratchett, whose normal territory is outer space. Anyone who appreciates Yaargeroffoutofityarbastard as the only possible name for a REAL cat will love this."
  2. Job, Patricia (1990-03-26). "Paperbacks". Quesnel Cariboo Observer. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: "The Unadulterated Cat is full of cleverly-written (by Terry Pratchett with cartoons by Gray Jolliffe) passages such as the following: "On the one hand, we have these great tawny brutes that sit yawning under the hot veldt sun... and on the other there's these little things that know how to sleep on top of off-peak heaters and use cat doors. Not much in-between, is there?" Actually, what's "in-between" is the subject of this fun book the not-quite-so civilized cat that lurks inside almost any lap cat. (McClelland And Stewart, $8.95)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Unadulterated Cat to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough for me to change my vote to Keep. Would withdraw but opposing votes have been presented. Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 17 September 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 00:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy Club of Kosova

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

Non-notable local astronomy club, with routine science journalism coverage of events and activities in the press coverage section. Article could be merged into the mai one about the observatory. Sadads (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Astronomy, and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm reluctant to support a delete because there is plenty of precedent for articles on local and national astronomy organizations, per Category:Astronomy organizations, and this one is at least cited. Yes I know that's Wikipedia:Whataboutism. Praemonitus (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate list or delete. Fails WP:N. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please identify an appropriate Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could be redirected if a "List of astronomical clubs" is created, article also sounds slightly promotional in tone. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir MemeGod :D, it helps if you provide a link to either an existing article or a potential page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Zero independent sources; the only potentially reliable source is a 404 page. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 16 September 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!} 21:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert Song (Max Liebman Presents)

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

Declined twice at WP:AFC moved by creator to main space, no evidence of notability, just listings and passing mentions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://playbill.com/article/the-dvd-shelf-a-connecticut-yankee-desert-song-four-weddings-and-a-funeral-honeymoon-in-vegas-and-more-com-181767 ; one paragraph in Thomas McCavour's 2020 The Gayety & Other Stories ; various mentions in reliable books, so that a redirect to the programme or to the operetta is totally warranted in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC) + https://www.reformer.com/local-news/more-vintage-tv-musicals-from-the-50s/article_9fbb2418-386a-52ae-858c-8488a27fea3c.html (pretty slow to open but significant)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:48, 5 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!} 23:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playbook review is significant coverage - six paragraphs about the movie/DVD transfer. Brattleboro Reformer not exactly a major outlet review, but it's five paragraphs. Well done @Mushy Yank for finding these sources.

To that I'd add William Leonard, Stage to Screen to Television[3] at 426 which not only has a lengthy paragraph but also documents a New York Evening Post (later NY Post) review by Thornton Delehanty. Oblivy (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the record, it's Playbill not Playbook. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:00, 16 September 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!} 22:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Gawin

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

The article is mostly based on primary sources, while the secondary sources are mostly unreliable, being as follows:

[4] prawdaoeligawin.blogspot.com is an attack site directed at the article subject, extremely unacceptable for a biography.
[5] celebryci.info is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[6] dramki.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[7] vibez.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[8] Not sure if kobieta.wp.pl is considered reliable. Due to legal reasons the cited article doesn't disclose the subject's last name but only the first letter, so I'm not sure if this is compatible with BLP.
[9] truestory.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[10] krakow.naszemiasto.pl is a local newspaper. It may be considered reliable, but like some sources above, it doesn't disclose the subject's surname, only the first letter.
[11] wiadomosci.gazeta.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.
[12] pomponik.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[13] o2.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.

Overall, even if someone can show that WP:GNG is narrowly met, this article is still a glaring WP:BLP violation, so I believe it would be the best to WP:TNT it regardless. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 5 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!} 23:35, 12 September 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 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harpal Dev Makwana

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

This article is part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala dynasty and Jhala (clan) created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes someone who is almost certainly a legendary figure and launders the sources to present him as a historical person. He may have been, but the sources do not indicate that:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as heir and descendent of Harpal Dev. It includes fantastic stories from the vahi (legendary geneaologies of high-caste Indian families), including Harpal Dev/Harpaldev defeating a ghost in battle and marrying a goddess, Shak-Ti who supernaturally rescues their children from an elephant.
Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
A Life with Wildlife: From Princely India to the Present is also by a purported descendant of Harpal Dev and retails the same fantastic stories, but at least presents them as legend.
Harpal Dev appears in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in several government gazetteers, including some cited in this article]
Popular Culture in a Globalised India is cited for a factual biographical claim, but it only discusses Harpal Dev in the context of a fictional stage play.
The Rajputs of Saurashtra discusses the Jhala Rajputs but says of the Harpal Dev story, "Bardic tales about their migrations from the Himalayan region to Sindh seem to contain little truth."
The article's sources include a few other trivial mentions, including a Who's Who that retails a descendant's claim of descent from Harpal Dev

Bottom line: What WP:SIGCOV we have on Harpal Dev is legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish him as a historical figure. I know WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, but with such a compromised article I recommend WP:TNT instead of trying to battle an army of socks claiming legendary stories are real. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewed all sources and I agree with the nominator's analysis of the page snd sources. Some sources just briefly mention about Legends and tales of the subject and some other sources I do find unreliable WP:RAJ. There is no WP:SIGCOV on the subject and the role in history to be considered notable and to warrant a page on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 12 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!} 23:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excellent reasoning in nomination, nothing further to add. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 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. Owen× ☎ 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bengal Pro T20 League

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

Don't need separate season articles for this tournament, as the coverage doesn't warrant it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and West Bengal. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Joseph2302, It is the largest tournament in East and North East India and it's one of the important leagues in India, I presume after a few years it will have same importance as Tamil Nadu Premier League or KSCA tournament, I believe this article should be kept. Beside that, can you please highlight the main issue in this article other than the coverage. A league can't be famous in just one season, it needs time, and this league had enough coverage being a new league according to what I saw in the internet and from the residents of West Bengal. Wowlastic10 (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please check the Tamil Nadu Premier League pages, including those dedicated to individual annual editions like the 2022 Tamil Nadu Premier League, 2023 Tamil Nadu Premier League, and 2024 Tamil Nadu Premier League. Separate pages exist for each team as well. Similarly, the Delhi Premier League T20, which is also organized under the directions of Board of Control for Cricket in India BCCI, has gained significant coverage after the successful completion of its seasons. Given this, it would be beneficial for Wikipedia readers to have dedicated pages for each annual edition of the Delhi Premier League T20, as well as individual pages for each team, similar to those for Tamil Nadu Premier League teams like Salem Spartans, Chepauk Super Gillies, and Lyca Kovai Kings.

Note Several Twenty20 pages have existed includimg thier annual leagues for many years, and in my opinion, it is not appropriate to nominate them for deletion.

It appears that certain teams are selectively promoting specific and state-level leagues while pushing for the deletion of others. This practice seems to favor the retention of pages related to their preferred leagues, potentially at the expense of others.

Wikipedia is a global platform that should uphold the principle of equality for all pages that have significant coverage. It's important to ensure that all state and national leagues with significant covearge, regardless of their popularity or backing, are treated fairly and given the opportunity to be represented. Consistent and unbiased application of Wikipedia's guidelines is crucial to maintaining its integrity as a reliable and inclusive source of information. Davidrun99 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the above keep reasons offer any reasoning whatsoever, just "these exist, so this should too". Clearly, this tournament also fails WP:GNG and consists wholly of WP:NOTSTATS. AA (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't told that Just because other tournament exists, this too shall exist. The Tamil Nadu premier league season pages exist because we have given them time. Why don't we give time to this article? Please Highlight how can I save this article rather than demotivating. Thank you! Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The league is not notable (even majority of the players) or noteworthy enough nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Fails WP:GNG. No need for separate page when most of the WP:CFORK is from Bengal Pro T20 League RangersRus (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please give suggestions to save this article. I will start research and find all necessary website articles for it. Thank you! Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wowlastic10 not commenting on this but basically what you need is 3 reliable sources with significant coverage; i.e. three news articles from different outlets, independent of the tournament, and not almost-entirely derived from official press releases, giving a couple paragraphs on it would likely work. Strictly you only need "multiple reliable sources" but 3 is the usual amount. I think the article *might* have this now, but I can't tell? Wikipedia notability really isn't supposed to be about how important something is, but how much writing exists on it. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Guidelines / Standards for Establishing Wikipedia Notability for State Cricket Leagues:

In my opinion, establishing clear guidelines for creating Wikipedia articles related to state cricket leagues is essential to ensure they meet the notability criteria and have a lasting presence on the platform. To pass the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG and retain annual league and team articles, I propose the following criteria:

Completion of Multiple Seasons: State leagues, such as the Tamil Nadu Premier League, should successfully complete at least one to three annual league series. This demonstrates consistency, relevance, and the league’s potential for long-term significance in the cricketing landscape.

Involvement of National Players: The state league should feature at least 10 players who have competed in prestigious events such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), national cricket tournaments, or international matches. The presence of such players not only elevates the league's standard but also increases its notability and media coverage.

Minimum Team Requirement and Broadcast Standards: To align with national and international guidelines, the state cricket league should consist of a minimum of six teams. Additionally, the league should be broadcast live on major sports channels like Star Sports, ESPN, or equivalent platforms. This ensures widespread visibility and demonstrates the league’s significance beyond the local level.

By adhering to these guidelines, we can ensure that Wikipedia articles about state cricket leagues are both notable and valuable resources for readers, reflecting the importance of these leagues in the broader context of cricket. Davidrun99 (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just writing the rules/entry criteria for a tournament doesn't mean that it passes WP:GNG, which is the main criteria for whether an article is kept or not (not any of the rules you're making up on this and similar AFDs). Where is the evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources specifically about this season? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. checking the refs and doing a BEFORE search, I couldn't find any prose reference which described the final, just scorecard websites.no report. So there's not only no WP:SIGCOV, there's not even any WP:ROUTINE of the biggest game. Fails GNG.

Spinin (talk) 01:51, 6 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!} 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Regardless of whether articles like this are needed, do the sources establish notability for this league?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without WP:SALTing. Reviewing the references, I'm on the fence about whether the referencing meets a GNG level or not. Given the newness and existing WP:OFFCRIC practices, I think the right approach is to delete for now, and recreate later if after a few seasons the competition does more clearly meet GNG year after year. Aspirex (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found articles by Hindustan Times, NDTV Sports, Times of India, News18, are this eleigible? Wowlastic10 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wowlastic10, you can't just say that you found sources, you have to share links so that other editors here can evaluate whether or not they are reliable and provide SIGCOV. But I'd hurry, this AFD might close soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz @Joseph2302 These are few reference examples:

1. https://www.news18.com/cricket/bengal-pro-t20-league-2024-full-list-of-matches-squad-details-livestreaming-info-and-more-8928067.html

2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/news/writtick-chatterjee-leads-smashers-to-table-top-in-bengal-pro-league/articleshow/111090607.cms

3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/bengal-pro-t20-league-t20-is-here-to-stay-it-will-take-cricket-forward-says-ganguly-101714823497909.html

4. https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/bengal-pro-t20-league-ipl-style-format-schedule-and-teams-2522471-2024-04-02

5. https://www.timesnownews.com/sports/cricket/cab-declares-launch-of-bengal-pro-t20-league-to-begin-immediately-after-ipl-2024-article-109092046

6. https://www.news18.com/cricket/cab-announce-regional-cricket-league-bengal-pro-t20-to-include-8-mens-and-womens-teams-8838333.html

7. https://www.aninews.in/news/sports/cricket/bengal-pro-t20-league-set-to-kick-off-from-june-202420240421141602

8. https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/sourav-ganguly-jhulan-goswami-unveil-bengal-pro-t20-league-champions-trophy-2535036-2024-05-03 Wowlastic10 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view: [14] is WP:ROUTINE coverage. [15] looks okay as a source about 2024 season. [16], [17], [18] are about the general tournament (which is not up for deletion) rather than the specific season article. [19], [20], [21] are regurgitated press releases. I'm not against Bengal Pro T20 League article existing, but don't believe we need individual season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 12 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!} 23:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough significant coverage on independent sources. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Venezuela, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. No indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, just like every single other one of these articles about embassies and high commissions that have been brought to AfD or PROD recently. There is no point wasting community time at AfD, just redirect them - none of the PRODs that I've redirected have been reverted, none of the AfDs I've been aware of have closed as anything other than redirect when that option has been presented (one was deleted after nobody suggested it in the AfD, I recreated it as a redirect and that hasn't been challenged). Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these articles were previously deleted at AfD. I don't understand why everything must now be a redirect. I personally don't think someone searching Wikipedia for "High Commission of Seychelles, London" is going to be well-served by being taken to a lengthy list of diplomatic missions, have to scroll all the way down to Seychelles and simply be given an address. I think that list, which has no secondary sources, completely fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: I know it's only a small part of your comment, but readers don't necessarily have to scroll all the way down. Redirects can target specific list entries (using anchors), not just sections. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa, you have expressed an opinion here but not actually cast a !vote. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a diplomatic headquarters of a conflictive country in Great Britain, therefore it must be maintained and expanded, as soon as possible my position is to maintain it. Alon9393 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your comment doesn't make sense. Please have a look at WP:DISCUSSAFD for some information on the types of arguments to make at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and Alon9393 makes no argument as to how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder , you have expressed an opinion here but not actually cast a !vote. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 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!} 23:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I suspect a redirect to the list article is the most likely outcome. Article currently has only a single primary source and is mostly just a photo gallery. No encyclopedic merit. AusLondonder (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 1 !vote is supporting redirect. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thryduulf. I agree with nom that it fails WP:NORG and shouldn't be kept as an article, but there's a clear redirect target here. My position is that we shouldn't delete redirects just because the section they point to is low-quality. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my experience, closers can consider ATDs if no objections to that outcome have been raised. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 18 September 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!} 21:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Build order

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

This article has been lying out without sources for over a decade. More importantly, this article already has a substantial amount of content that we could cite sources to in its current state, but that would be a bad idea so we would rewrite the article instead - however, upon searching for sources, I, of course whatever I found is most likely not reliable. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't even find a source that could allow it to be redirected to the glossary of terms. Simply too niche and applies to more stuff than games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Zero WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 16 September 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. If reliable sources, such as academic or news coverage or awards, emerge at a later date, I'd be happy to restore this article to Draft space where those references can be added. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filmzene.net

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

Highly promotional and not encyclopedic. Completely fails WP:GNG. Created by a single-purpose COI account account as promo. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Hungary. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obvious case of WP:ADMASQ. Nothing salvageable. Fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My WP:BEFORE reveals nothing that would enable editors to add policy-compliant content to the page. The current content should be removed, leaving nothing, ergo the page should be deleted.—Alalch E. 00:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Filmzene.net is a 20 years old non-profit site about soundtracks and movie composers, and I am an editor of it. We have interviews with many famous movies composers (Philip Glass, John Powell, Lisa Gerrard etc.) and I thought the site deserved to have general information about them on EnWiki. But it really is incomplete, because I haven't finished editing it yet. Sorry for the mistake, I understand that you want to delete this. Flzn (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Flzn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Flzn: Hi there and thanks for commenting here. Please be assured my deletion nomination is nothing against you or your website. The English language Wikipedia does have quite strict rules about notability, see our notability requirements for companies, corporations, organisations, groups, products, or services. We also require articles to be written from a neutral point of view and not designed as promotion. The article has now been edited quite a bit but the version I nominated for deletion was not the way we write articles, with huge unsourced lists of notable people and promotional language. We also have a policy about conflict of interest editing, which is generally discouraged. Primarily if the article is to be kept we'll need to see coverage of the website by reliable, independent sources such as news websites. The coverage does not have to be in English. If you're aware of the existence of those sources please do provide them. Thanks again for your understanding. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview as reference:

https://b-oldal.blog.hu/2011/03/19/interju_filmzene_net

This Wiki-article has been around for 7 years, but now almost everything was deleted by the editors of Wikipedia. It is sad. I can't rewrite it, and I can't fight, so delete it. Flzn (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic: Filmzene.net is a non-profit site make by fans (with lots of information and interviews with famous composers), but if we, as editors, had paid for a hidden promotion to a news site, then there would be an article about it on Wikipedia. Flzn (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, being only an encyclopedia, doesn't have a special affinity toward non-profit human activities. Allowing intrusion of pages on non-notable non-commercial websites would only mean that we would have many more terrible articles on those websites, because notability is a guarantor of quality, ultimately. So we wouldn't be doing much of a favor to those entities, as a class, compared to commercial websites, which would on average be represented by much better articles. Now that would be ironic: You try to uplift the non-profit websites but only cause the commercial bloc of competitors to look more professional and established. Still, it is harder for companies and most organizations to pass the notability threshold; the demand that coverage be significant is additionally strict for those topics, precisely for the reason you have described (see WP:NCORP: These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.) The topic of your website, seen simply as "web content" does not have to meet those stricter criteria and is subject to WP:GNG and WP:NWEB (for example, your website could have won a notable award and that might have been enough ... potentially). But the the latter of those two is also highly aware of the problem and explains that media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores are inadequate. It's possible to try a thing such as what you have described, but many editors are still able to recognize such promotional efforts. Often, such artiles are suspiciously non-newsworthy as there is no real story to cover; a good question to ask is "why was this published when it was published"—if you can't answer that, something could be going on. Usually what you get when you pay is precisely lazy "media re-prints of press releases", recycled material from your website, they will take your money and have you write the article for them (and you won't be able to distance yourself from the subject and make something that doesn't look promotional), etc. —Alalch E. 13:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mach61 14:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, this article, while short, has a very promotional tone. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it has been very substantially edited since nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete literally promotional--Loewstisch (talk) 10:00, 16 September 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 Devatha_–_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Tara

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

Am adaption of Devatha – Anubandhala Alayam which a good target for redirect as an WP:ATD, but as it stands, none of the sourcing is reliable. All on the page falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, especially based on recent RSN discussion on WP:TOI. I am unable to find anything in a WP:BEFORE that is reliable to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devatha_–_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 13 September 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) 21:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volga Boat Show

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

A highly WP:PROMO article fails WP:NOT by being WP:ADMASQ. Cleanup would leave no encyclopedic content, and there is no appropriate redirect target. (A G11 was rather inexplicably declined.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could almost have been a {{uw-spamublock}} because the promotional page about the organization which has volga2015.ru as its domain and "volga2015" as its instagram handle was created by user "Volga2018". The sources are not credible.—Alalch E. 22:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after purported cleanup by multiple editors article is overly promotional, which suggests G11 should have been used. Also appears to have been created by a single-purpose COI account. Sources don't appear great, either. A big mess not worth saving. AusLondonder (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - literally promotional. It says it in the article itself. We are not a free web hosting site for Russian yachts. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned above, this is a promotion, and more than that: it's a promotion for a promotion like two mirrors confronting each other recursively. Also, in addition to the issues raised above, it raises a red flag that nobody living anywhere near the Volga itself has made an article on ru-wiki. It's a harbinger that perhaps there are no better sources floating out there on the Runet. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:52, 19 September 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. WP:SNOW keep, there appears to be no support for the deletion of the article whatsoever. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8 Ball Pool

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR with zero references. A previous RfD resulted in a redirection to Eight-ball. Miniclip video game fails WP:NVG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find several reviews of the game in reliable sources: CNET [22], The Ledger [23], Pocket Gamer [24] and some covered in WP:VG/RS like Gamezebo (Facebook version) [25] and Slide to Play [26]. The game passes WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jovanmilic, appears to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jovanmilic.Timur9008 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jovanmilic97, it does pass WP:GNG, it just needs to be properly written, removing sections like currency and surprise boxes, they can have mentions in the gameplay section MK at your service. 14:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG - I also found, albeit not as much in quality as Jovanmilic's, several more sources online about 8 Ball Pool. win8x (talking | spying) 21:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jovanmilic97. The nomination was made in good faith and it's always nice when someone finds sources. This definitely needs some cleaning up. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said the article needed cleanup, and I'm very well aware of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:55, 17 September 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 has been withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Late B.P. Helium

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

Not independently notable. Any notable and sourced content could be easily copied to a section on the Elephant Six article. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independently notable from E6 due to the release of a full-length under his own moniker, which received coverage from outlets such as Pitchfork Media ([27], Popmatters ([28]), and Dusted Magazine ([29]). This interview could also help flesh the page out. Chubbles (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the sources identified above by Chubbles; and there is more coverage such as this AllMusic staff review here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 02:50, 15 September 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) 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dav Nim

AfDs for this article:

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

Article recreated after 2022 deletion, but the sourcing fails to show WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources, and thus the subject once again fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Cambodia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There are four sources in Cambodian, could anyone check them? Svartner (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner I ran machine translation on all four as part of my BEFORE. Assuming the translation was reasonably accurate they are either WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or WP:ROUTINE match/transfer coverage, not WP:SIGCOV. In any case, they're each only a few paragraphs long so not enough to get into any depth on Nim. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:SIGCOV. Seems like author is trying to stretch info to make article seem substantial. Chris1834 Talk 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Star Wars characters#Nien Nunb. asilvering (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nien Nunb

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor series character whose article is entirely fancruft, with a WP:BEFORE turning up no notable independent coverage. The article was recreated after having been previously voted as delete in its first AfD and it's remained the same old, same old since then. A redirect to List of Star Wars characters#Nien Nunb is suggested, and possibly a salting of the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 19:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars characters#Nien Nunb as an alternative to AFD. Not seeing much.Timur9008 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find/observe significant coverage of the topic with reliable, reliable and independent sources that mention the character, my position is to maintain a serious illogical redirection, the character is very relevant and maintains a verified and evidenced context. --Alon9393 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote from blocked editor. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect per WP:ATD. There isn't independent coverage and there wasn't really much evidence to split it in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and other rationales. Not enough independent coverage here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 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 has been withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boyracer

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

Appears to fail music notability criteria Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AllMusic has a biography and a lot of reviews of their records, Pitchfork Media has three reviews, PopMatters has a review, Trouser Press has an entry for the band, and so on. toweli (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ a review from Exclaim! toweli (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great job finding sources! I think we should chuck the list of singles and EPs and rename the section "Select discography". Geschichte (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Author) Keep as I don't start articles on musicians who do not meet WP:MUSIC. We do not have selection criteria for discographies and a complete list is encyclopedic, so I disagree with the "Select Discography" proposal and suggest instead a reformatting. Chubbles (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sufficiently notable for inclusion, as evidenced by coverage. --Michig (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn based on toweli's work on finding sources. @Chubbles, perhaps better sourcing when creating … Agree that the discography needs to be pruned. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 02:49, 15 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mihajlo Butraković

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

Biography of a Serbian football player shows no WP:SIGCOV in independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Maybe someday but nothing significant as of now. Chris1834 Talk 21:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am open to draftify as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what's the grounds for draftifying? I'm not seeing any reason why this wouldn't just result in a G13 time out? -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 19 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanausis

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

Completely uncited and lacks WP:GNG (not notable) TheProEditor11 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. TheProEditor11 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, and Royalty and nobility. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like sufficient sources have been added since to establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could use an expert on this one. Pinging @Doug Weller: Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some mentions in Google books, but they refer to Tanausis as "King of Goths" not Queen. Nothing else comes up in Google. I think this page is a prank.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looks like someone changed "KING" to "QUEEN" in early September. We may need to restore it to the King version and check the citations in Google books.Changing my vote to COMMENT for now. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was the change, and that editor's other edits all look highly suspect. IP vandalism, I suspect. PamD 07:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that, restored the correct version. Also found War of Vesosis and Tanausis by the same author, also vandalised on the 12th. I see I have edited that article and that it has sources. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a Google search shows a lot of sources we can read[30] and Google scholar.[31]

Clearly notable. But this chemo still has me weak so I hope others can do the sourcing. Thanks Doug Weller talk 08:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'm an expert, but what I've done was fun! Doug Weller talk 08:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it was fun! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a little research and found some citations to support at least the article partially. It still needs more work. Also some historians have said the War of Vesosis and Tanausis mentioned in the article may not have happened and could be fantasy or transcription error, so i have indicated it as such.Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly merge with War of Vesosis and Tanausis. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 16 September 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. asilvering (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pugad Baboy villains

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, such as "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. (This material could be used on a Pugad Baboy Wiki, however.) TH1980 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghim Kumari Gurung

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nepal. JTtheOG (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - member of National football squad. nirmal (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This criteria is not sufficient, especially for less relevant national teams. Svartner (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shows as playing from 2016 - current. Quick search looks like she retired in 2023. 7 years with no coverage. Chris1834 Talk 20:58, 17 September 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. If anyone is interested in sourcing and merging some of the content, would be happy to restore to draft on request. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulletman enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, such as "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable sources that discuss the overall topic of Bulletman and/or Bulletgirl's enemies as a group or set, making this a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. On top of that, nearly all of these entries are one-shot characters that appeared in single issues. I was going to suggest a very selective merge to Bulletman and Bulletgirl#Rogues_gallery (i.e., mentioning the two or three entries here that were actually reoccurring), but as this list is completely unsourced, a merger would not really be appropriate. No prejudice against actually filling out that section of the main article with reliably sourced information on their handful of actually reoccurring rogues, though. Rorshacma (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the rogues gallery section at Bulletman and Bulletgirl. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources. Azuredivay (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and reliable sources are present, does not look suitable for Wikipedia. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:LISTCRUFT and a complete lack of references. Sir MemeGod  17:31, 19 September 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 New Gods. asilvering (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Genesis

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to New Genesis (DC Comics) (as there is a song with that name) and then redirect to New Gods. No indication of notability. Not sure if the song is notable either, but it doesn't seem like a primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I guess you are also wanting to establish a disambiguation page if that is done. As I don't recall any other New Genesis in comics, care to elaborate on why you want it called "New Genesis (DC Comics)" instead of "New Genesis (comics)"? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Gods or keep. A Google Scholar search gives many hits, and more concretely there are a number of secondary sources which talk about New Genesis in the context of real-world religious inspirations, like The Gospel According to Superheroes, Theology and the DC Universe and Superheroes of the Round Table, which on p. 77 also talks about the literary consequences of the concept of New Genesis. So I cannot follow how the conclusion only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries was reached. I am convinced the secondary sources easily provide enough material to write a full encyclopedic article. Much of the analysis on New Genesis seems to be in contrasting to Apokolips, though, so possibly a treatment within the New Gods article might be best - purely on the basis of a WP:NOPAGE decision rather than notability. Not sure about the primary topic here, but no objection against a move to New Genesis (comics). Daranios (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Gods per WP:ATD. WP:SIGCOV is borderline, but there are fragments to WP:PRESERVE as part of a more notable topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with New Gods: per WP:ATD and Shooterwalker's reasoning. If there was more coverage I would have loved to keep this, it's a really unique article. Sir MemeGod  19:16, 19 September 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 Secret Wars. Anyone who wants to add a mention at Features of the Marvel Universe is encouraged to do so. asilvering (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battleworld

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Secret Wars as the primary target for this fictional location, where adequate information is already covered. While arguments in the prior AfD from over a decade ago bringing up Battelworld's appearances in other related comics, I would argue that those have not received as much independent third-party coverage from reliable sources outside of its connections to the Secret Wars comics. Redirecting to the original Secret Wars comic instead of the 2015 one makes sense as the former also points to the latter comic with a dedicated section for it. I will also note that the Battleworld article has not improved much from the prior AfD and borders on pure WP:FANCRUFT, especially with its exhaustive list, as this is WP:NOTADIRECTORY. The other contents of Battleworld beyond Secret Wars can be adequately covered at those other comic articles, such as Beyond!, as brought up in the prior AfD. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the first and third Battleworlds have known locations, would you prefer that they be listed in the respectful Secret Wars articles? --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that would be the most optimal location for the relevant versions of this, although the main Battleworld stems from the original comic. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the planets section of Features of the Marvel Universe if no worthy sources can be found by the day of this AFD closure.--Rtkat3 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue merging a lot of content to that list would be a bit much for it, and it would be morel logical to point directly to a comic where it is an important aspect rather than shoehorning it into a list entry, which can be limiting. That entry should likely summarize the different versions from the various comics and point to those for more details. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say in the last article that the respectful Battleworld descriptions would be listed in their respectful storyline appearances? Of course we can add the good parts of the Battleworld descriptions to it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. However, the main topic would be the Secret Wars comic, not the Features list, from my understanding. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Secret Wars as primary target, per WP:ATD. It can be additionally noted at Features of the Marvel Universe. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Secret Wars: per ShooterWalker. Sir MemeGod  20:35, 19 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Dhimmitude

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

This work has no clear claim to notability. There's one review, as basically the lone source (saying the book is tendentious polemic), but that is not enough to pass muster per WP:NBOOK, which, in its most basic form, demands at least two, non-trivial reviews. That leaves us with a single source and no notability. Delete. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? There are five reviews listed in the article at present. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the nomination rationale is incorrect. There are five full length reviews listed in the further reading section. What PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under SK3: Clearly enough reviews to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to those already in the article, there's also reviews in Mediterranean Politics ([32]), Digest of Middle East Studies ([33]) and Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte [de] ([34]). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MP link doesn't go anywhere if you're not logged in, but the DOMES review seems viable. I guess the German one counts too, if not very useful unless someone plans to translate. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? It's still a review that counts for notability. Just because you can't access the link doesn't mean it's not countable for notability. Other languages sources are perfectly fine. What?? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Sorry about the MP one, please check if this T&F link works through TWL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13629390410001679982 ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doi appears to be producing a different review. May be a number off. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to download the PDF and scroll to the fifth page of the PDF. The preview only shows the first apge. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 It isn't, T&F journals are just weird and throw all their book reviews in an issue under one pdf and DOI. The review is from pages 138-139 and is 800 words long. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly didn't check the further reading, because the further reading isn't meant to be for core sources that should be used as references. That seems to yield one more good review. Then a link that just hangs, MEQ which is unreliable, something that looks like a blog, and a dead link to a student newspaper. Still not impressive, although one could use the JSTOR source to expand the article to say that the book is not only tendentious polemic, but also "remarkably ignorant". And I suppose that is a source stating that the suggest is "remarkable" in its ignorance, so there's that. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading is often used for putting sources that are establishing notability but have not been incorporated into the page yet. Stubs aren't against the rules. Other than MEQ all the further reading reviews are fine. The link doesn't matter with academic journals, it's extremely easy to identify and verify that a review from these publications exists, which is what counts for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to yield one more good review. Is that not enough for NBOOK, which only requires two reviews? Then there's the other three reviews I mentioned, which you can't just wave away since they are in a different language (WP:RSUE) ~~or are inaccessible to you (WP:PAYWALL)~~. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC) strike point about inaccessibility. Sorry, I forgot that I was accessing it from my library's Wifi, which let me access it even without a login. I wasn't aware that accessing it from elsewhere would show next to no info about the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess so. Can't really maintain my initial premise. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. But an argument can be made to merge this back with Bat Ye'or. Much of how scholars view this book has to do with how scholars view Ye'or's various theses on Islam in general.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:45, 18 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Democratic Party (Turkey)

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

Yet another unsourced article about an extremely minor Turkish political party Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough sources are available, such as [35], [36], [37] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep held three seats in the national parliament; appears to have dissolved into the Left Party. Somewhat confusingly, has the same name in Turkish as a party in Northern Cyprus (Communal Democracy Party), would be good to clarify the translation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party with national parliamentary representation. Also, why is this not moved to 'Social' rather than 'Socialist'? --Soman (talk) 00:20, 19 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Maskanakis

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Greece. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing here. Chris1834 Talk 20:54, 17 September 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 Draftify‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrien Thibaut

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

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Ni significant coverage, everything is pretty much match reports and stats sites, fails WP:GNG. No spectacular career that would justify keeping. Giant Snowman 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT pretty much match reports and stats though. There is references that back up what I put within the article, Crewe Alexandra's website is on there numerous times as are other references which support my research into Adrien Thibaut's career from what I found online. EnglishDude98 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from his own club does not go towards SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the other references and read the articles please, you'll see that it is NOT pretty much match reports and stats sites as per your above comment. EnglishDude98 (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources show significant coverage? Giant Snowman 20:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Decent start for the article, but certainly needs to play more professional football and to be talked about by secondary sources. Govvy (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per Govvy. Svartner (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Govvy- page is better off moving into the draft space for now. 2A06:5902:180C:5800:50F1:C4DF:B59:9E61 (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Agree with Govvy. Even as a Crewe fan, I think this needs more significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Paul W (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Per above. Chris1834 Talk 20:34, 17 September 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 procedural close‎ as a misplaced nomination. Deletion of categories is discussed at CfD, not AfD. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NewsNet affiliates

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

The network NewsNet ceased operations last month and is no longer affiliated with any stations now. OWaunTon (talk) 17:18, 12 September 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 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 12 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yashmith

AfDs for this article:

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

Bit-part actor. Shorts, videos, uncredited. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 16:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are unreliable. There is this and this which are bylined but the information is basically publishing information supplied by the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, the Times of India used to be a reliable source, but its standards have fallen. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 16 September 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. asilvering (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galápagos (radio show)

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

Article about a radio program, not reliably sourced as passing notability criteria for radio programs. To be fair, this is left over from almost 20 years ago, a time when Wikipedia basically extended an automatic presumption of notability to any radio program whose existence was verified, regardless of whether it actually had any non-primary sources to satisfy WP:GNG or not -- but the notability criteria for radio shows have long since been tightened up, and now require GNG-worthy coverage in sources independent of the program to externally validate its significance. But this cites no references at all, the Spanish interlang doesn't have any non-primary sources either, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources failed to find anything new. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Ecuador. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 12 September 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!} 23:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Madison Square Garden

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at Madison Square Garden (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. No specific statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep N/GNG is well beyond met for this venue and list and it is de facto the 'you've made it' venue for multiple sports and entertainment industries in the United States. Nate • (chatter) 20:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's this entire book written about the topic, this book which likely also does (but sadly not free for public viewing), there's coverage listing out musical artists who performed at MSG in this magazine article, page 549 of this book similarly has a paragraph listing out top musical acts who performed at the venue, in addition to several news reports grouping MSG entertainment events together. WP:NLIST is beyond satisfied here. I'm highly doubtful a proper WP:BEFORE search was conducted since this set of articles was mass-nommed by the dozens in rapid-fire fashion; these ought to be taken at a pace of one or two per week. A trout may be in order. Left guide (talk) 21:53, 14 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 MSP

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

This article is about a company only notable for their acquisitions, meaning it does not pass WP:NCORP. Most of the sources listed only give the company a passing mention, (one sentence about a company they acquired) and a further search hasn't turned up anything more than the kind of coverage already listed in the article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage consists of standard M&A-related fare, much of which either is press release material or is directly sourced to such, without any in-depth significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. ----Kinu ^t/_c 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the few sources that do exist are all WP:ORGTRIV. Brandon (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NCORP. I did find sources, but all were from either the company webpage or were primary. Sir MemeGod  15:54, 19 September 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 New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Taking of Chelsea 426

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

Fails WP:NBOOK lacks WP:SIGCOV no production info nor reviews Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures. Per nom, completely fails all criteria. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above suggestion. Searched, found nothing besides 2 sales listings without commentary and an interview with the author in a doctor who magazine about it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above rationales. No indication of notability shown or illustrated. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#List of New Series Adventures: per DoctorWhoFan91. Sir MemeGod  17:26, 19 September 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 New Series Adventures. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy (novel)

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

Fails GNG and poor sourcing ((Whatcha gotta say? :) -ThaFDA)) (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures. Found a few passing mentions, a weird linguistics sources that uses this as an example without commentary, and an interview with the author about the book. Nothing usable for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per above. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above rationales. No indication of external notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 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!} 05:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Venezuela, Houston

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

Consulates are rarely notable, this one lacks in-depth secondary source coverage to prove otherwise. Only coverage appears to relate to a minor incident where the consulate moved location without permission. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Venezuela, and Texas. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that consulates are rarely notable. The minor incident doesn't really add to notability. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has encyclopedic relevance; the topic appears in an encyclopedia. The content of the article is encyclopedic, with a broader extension and content it can remain on Wikipedia. Alon9393 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed how it meets notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"article has encyclopedic relevance; the topic appears in an encyclopedia" - Well I guess we can't delete anything, then? AusLondonder (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article fails to establish any sense of notability. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:21, 12 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M2SYS Technology

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, every source in the article is an example of WP:ORGTRIV. Brandon (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Georgia (U.S. state). Brandon (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator has sound reasoning for the deletion of the article, as all of the sources used in the article are simply for awards, and thus fails to meet the WP:ORGTRIV guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustARandomEditor123 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar Mishra

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

Poorly referenced promo piece / CV on a non-notable civil servant. Declined at AfC but moved into the main space by the author. A bit too old to draftify now, and in any case BEFORE finds no evidence of notability either, so probably no point in prolonging its misery. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our general notability guideline as well as our our subject-specific guideline Monophile (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. I cannot find subject's work that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy nationally or internationally. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The man was a Civil service and the sources that support him are reliable like The Times of India, my position is to maintain in some way there is significant coverage and evident notoriety. Alon9393 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:TOI, the Times of India needs to be used with caution as a reference. Either way, in the ToI references cited, Mishra is only mentioned in passing, and is not the subject of any of the articles. Merely being in the Civil Service and getting quoted briefly in the newspaper doesn't automatically confer notability per WP:Biographies of living persons. Wikishovel (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikishovel According to WP:TOI The Times of India you should look at it with caution, but the same does not happen with The Times somehow the colonialist mentality is prevalent here, I remind you that India and Pakistan have not They are under British rule and yoke and that does not mean they are irrelevant in history or in their own decisions. Auch Alon9393 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If colonialist mentality were the problem, then we would expect all Indian newspapers to be judged unreliable on Wikipedia. But the consensus on Wikipedia is that WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP, for example, are reliable sources, whereas the London WP:DAILYMAIL is regarded as a completely unreliable source, and is generally removed from articles on sight. Wikishovel (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393: I proposed this article for deletion because it doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. The three ToI articles referenced do not provide significant coverage of Mishra: they are not about him, but rather quoting something he has said about other matters. Even if the said publication didn't have reliability issues, these articles still would contribute nothing towards his notability. HTH, -- I DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, the Times of India used to be a reliable source, but its standards have fallen, and I’ve seen some AfDs recently that depend heavily upon that as the source that they claim proves notability. I don’t see significant coverage in any case. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could not find significant coverage for this person besides the TIA reference, which I wouldn't consider reliable. There was also a Hindustan Times source, although I will again not count that as reliable. Sir MemeGod  17:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of lines of miniatures. asilvering (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Warriors (Ral Partha)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of lines of miniatures. BOZ (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; and List of lines of miniatures appears to have no inclusion criteria; to avoid running afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE it should likely only feature entries with their own pages, and if there are none, I'm not sure it should exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to List of lines of miniatures. One review does not establish notability, but this is perfectly fine content for merging as the suggested WP:Alternative to deletion. The target list collects both entries with stand-alone notability, therefore usefull for navigation and those which have commentary by secondary sources which is so short that it makes sense to collect them in a list, another recognized purpose of lists. All entries in that list have commentary based on secondary sources, so there is not problem with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as long as we stay with this critereon, which is not spelled out but implemented based on more general policies. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I've just now realized that the sourced material is already present at the target. So WP:PRESERVEing in the form of a redirect should be the WP:Alternative to deletion to go, based on all the arguments above still applying. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I don't see the coverage to support a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of lines of miniatures: per Daranios's reasoning. Sir MemeGod  19:13, 19 September 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 23:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke Resources

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs mixes the mine and the corp which are not one entity. Corp references are routine business news, funding and so. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two instances of puffery. I’m not convinced that it’s notable. Bearian (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, I create pages after analyzing the regional impact of the subject. I believe the subject is notable in Australia and sources discussed company in detail alongside the mine and other activities. I updated the page with more sources. I read WP:NCORP, all sources are from reputable and independent sources such as AFR, World Coal, The Australian Mining Review, theurbandeveloper, ABC and they are not just passing mentions but discusses the company and its activities. Also, It is encyclopedic, there's no promotion or any type of factual error. Miketesting (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very poor in the encyclopedic development, perhaps at another time they will develop it better, for the moment delete. Alon9393 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references:

Ref 1 [38]

Ref 2 [39] This is a routine standard annoucement of partnership that fails WP:ORGTRIV.

Ref 3 [40] This is routine information of sale of resources from Peabody to Pembroke. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Ref 4 [41]

Ref 5 [42] This is a press-release.It is not independent.

Ref 6 [43] "Tudor told Reuters in an interview." It fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 7 [44] Another interview. It fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 8 [45] "Pembroke Resources to build coal mine in Bowen Basin". Comes from the press-release as the above.

Ref 9 [46]

Ref 4 and 9 but it is same insider sources can reveal. All these are standard notices, press-releases, routine annoucements of funds. All of them fails WP:SIRS in one way or another. scope_creep^Talk 06:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My main point is that all these sources are reputable in Australia, they a=obviously won't market or promote the company by writing excessive details about the subject. They only write and publish facts that is the case with every reliable source. If this is the case then it weakens the existence of other associated pages as well, and some of the pages related mines and their parent companies don't even have that amount of press. Standard notices, funds news, ventures etc is still a news and even these wiki policies that you mentioned says that if something is from a reliable source its admissible.Miketesting (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain - you're referring to the standard on whether a source can be used to support a fact or some information within an article. You are correct that it simply needs to be published in a reliable source. There is a different standard though for sources that may be used to establish the notability of a topic, and those sources must contain in-depth information and "Independent Content" about the company. So standard notices, regurgitated PR, funding, interviews with execs and other references (which can be fine for supporting facts/info in the article) are not acceptable for establishing notability. See WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:32, 14 September 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 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C&Rsenal

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

No evidence this YouTube channel passes WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Its only WP:BEFORE "news" coverage outside of this article is on TheFirearmBlog (see WP:BLOGS). The other sources in the article are a Forbes contributor post (which is unreliable) and links to the subject's own channels. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Firearms. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find sources from the firearmsblog and reddit, and their own site. None of which help notability. The sources now in the article aren't RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes used for sourcing is a contributor piece, non-RS Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Orphan status and no RS.Jtwhetten (talk) 00:29, 18 September 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 Bukit Panjang LRT line#Stations. Owen× ☎ 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keat Hong LRT station

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

A redirect to Bukit Panjang LRT line#Stations, originally added by R22-3877 was reverted by an IP editor. I do agree with the original rationale for the redirect: sources regarding the page tend to mention it in passing (listings near the station, etc.) and a search on Google and Newslink turns up no sources that provide significant coverage on the station, I'm opening this AfD to gather consensus. My suggestion is Redirect to Bukit Panjang LRT line#Stations Broc Broc (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Singapore. Skynxnex (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:02, 13 September 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. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuno Pereira (footballer, born 1996)

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

Not able to find any WP:SIGCOV of this footballer to meet requirements of WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. (Nota bene, there's another footballer with the same name but born a different year.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see that I tagged this for notability some years ago; another Algrim creation from when the guidelines were different. The claim to notability is playing one league (second tier) and two cup games for Leixoes, which is a very weak claim. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 25ish games in almost a decade...not notable. Chris1834 Talk 20:48, 17 September 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 Bukit Panjang LRT line#Stations. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South View LRT station

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

A redirect to Bukit Panjang LRT line#Stations, originally added by R22-3877 was reverted by an IP editor. I do agree with the original rationale for the redirect: A search on NewspaperSG turned up many results, but almost none were about the LRT station, and a search on Google and Newslink turned up basically no sources that covered the station in detail, so the station's notability just cannot be established, I'm opening this AfD to gather consensus. My suggestion is Redirect to Bukit Panjang LRT line#Stations Broc (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Singapore. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 13 September 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. Owen× ☎ 14:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall College Students' Union

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

Entirely non-notable student organisation for small regional college. No references, no attempt to improve despite being tagged for over ten years. Suggest deletion with merger into The Cornwall College Group of anything still considered of value. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not meeting WP:GNG. I found a couple student newspapers, but probably don't even get to reliability standards. Conyo14 (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking significant in-depth coverage, article is currently in a terrible state with zero sources (which fails WP:V). AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles are required to have references, which this article does not have. And also I believe that this article could have been created by violating Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, since the creator only did this article. Catfurball (talk) 23:30, 16 September 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. Owen× ☎ 14:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SaadiCorp

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

This is an odd one. The article was declined twice at draft, as it was sourced almost entirely by primary sources. Up until July, the article creator described the company as "a financial services firm headquartered in Lahore, Pakistan. The company was founded in late 2019 by Muhammad Salman Saadi, a finance professional." Their website at that point said the same, up until 16 June, at which point it appears to have gone offline.

On 5 September, article creator rewrote the article, now describing it as: "a research institute based in Lahore, Pakistan, that specialises in leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to drive advancements in healthcare research", quite a remarkable pivot, and moved the article to main space as Saadi Corporation Limited. The chairman from the original article is now listed as the CEO. I can find nothing on the company in reliable sources, just social media, and their website is still down. The research paper they submitted to Oncogenesis appears to be sitting in the submission queue, as I can find no trace of it elsewhere online, and nothing to show that this meets WP:CORP. Wikishovel (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Medicine, and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is clearly a PROMO, advertisement and undisclosed paid editing. Fails both, WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. Fwiw, they also got a very PROMO article on wikitia.com — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about paid editing (or at least COI) makes sense. There is no way to know about that Oncogenesis paper unless you know the person who submitted it, as the link wouldn't be known to anyone else. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entry with promotional content. References are missing. Relevance not proven. An internet search returns very few results. --Alon9393 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. That nature paper link is to a copy of a submitted paper, not an accepted paper, so should be read very sceptically. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. non notable & looks like kind advertising.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 202.47.50.250 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Loewstisch (talk) 09:57, 16 September 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. Since 4-way and 8-way were only brought up partway into the discussion, I cannot extend the scope of this AfD to delete those. Owen× ☎ 14:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6-way

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

"way" is not mentioned in Symmetric multiprocessing, and 6-way will not get confused for Six Way, Alabama. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link to Symmetric multiprocessing isn't spurious - you can say "N-way SMP" to describe a computer system with N processors - but it does seem a bit of an unlikely search term. I note that the 4-way and 8-way disambiguations also link to SMP, so those should probably be treated the same way if it's removed here. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, precisely per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and additionally delete 8-way which is solely generics (SMP and skydiving). I've additionally wrote a merge request to clean up and merge 4-way and Fourway, Virginia, as (after the N-generics are removed) there are at least four relevant articles with the name. Mia ^{a data witch (chat)} 12:17, 19 September 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 14:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Heizung GmbH

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

Unsourced for over a decade and does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Germany, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:An unsourced WP:SPA article about a company. The article author also removed a Prod on the basis that a now-unavailable Google+ entry existed. My searches are finding routine listings for the Mülheim factory but are not finding the substantial coverage of Copa Heizung / Coskunöz Radyater which would be needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 19:46, 11 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 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and didn't find any independent reliable sources. Xegma(talk) 13:51, 12 September 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. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1st clan chief

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

Dab page of unclear purpose. There are many Scottish clans with chiefs, and even more international clans. All of them must have had a first chief. Are they all to be listed here? Is that encyclopedic? Or is it meant to be chronological, in which case one is earlier by 300 years and the primary topic? – sgeureka ^t•c 13:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Scotland. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a valid disambiguation page, and is not helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to not be a useful dab page at all. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a sensible dab page: every clan had a first chief, but no-one would search on that term. PamD 19:28, 17 September 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. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbora Polcarová

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

Article fails WP:GNG. All references listed are primary and I can't find significant coverage in reliable, secondary ones. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – References are primary, interviews or profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 15 September 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 14:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sundus Global

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

Does not meet NCORP, created be one editor with few edits elsewhere and deprodded without any explanation. WP:BEFORE check shows little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPA creation, fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:09, 5 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 11:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Khaleej Times source is a doting interview fluff piece, and the others are catalog entries. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 19 September 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. The Keep views carry more weight than the Delete ones. Owen× ☎ 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Sathyaraj

AfDs for this article:

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

Biographical article about a person lacking in notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosana2300 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 September 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 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 6 is solid, I found this as well [47] confirming her role a a nutritionist. With the other sources, it seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the nominator is User:Mosana2300 who just registered their account today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Xegma(talk) 13:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the articles are newspaper fillers, never failing to mention she is the daughter of a popular actor. The contributions of the individual herself are never clear in any article; we just get to know she is a nutritionist conducting NGO's which in itself does not suffice for notability. A couple of articles ref 14 and 15 are about whether she will join politics "soon" and these belong to 2018-19. It is clear that whatever newspaper coverage she has got is due to her parentage. Do not agree notability is met. Azhagiya_manavalan(talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: from what I see, they pass WP:GNG. I did actually find a few sources for this person, aside from Oaktree's. Sir MemeGod  15:57, 19 September 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. Owen× ☎ 14:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Raney

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

Fails WP:BIO. All I could find is a Four States Living Magazine article.[48] Clarityfiend (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject does not have enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ----Kinu ^t/_c 16:48, 14 September 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 all five pages. Owen× ☎ 14:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts

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

This fails WP:NLIST. No explanation whatsoever. Clearly a violation of WP:NOTCATALOG or WP:NOTDATABASE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Lists, California, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following:

Keep all - You are suggesting we delete all the works in progress for WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding. Wikipedia itself is a work in progress, as is this AFD project. Right or wrong, I just don't feel comfortable deleting all the works in progress for an entire project. — Maile (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:HARDWORK. This feels like a database. No explanation whatsoever. Just raw list with little to no purpose see WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP for more info. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NOTDATABASE, under number 3 Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.. An alternative for this might be to merge/redirect it in some of the "List of X ski resort" as it is a WP:CONTENTFORK of it. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a database, but more of a new editor feeling their way through our maze of conflicted processes. And, yes, all Wikipedia content needs at least a lead paragraph of explanation. When I first started editing, I was told that Wikipedia did not like lists and discouraged using them. Then I discovered Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Featured lists, etc. Newcomers, both editors and reviewers, deal with it the best they can, but we often inadvertently contradict ourselves. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I'd suggest removing the ticket prices per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but this is relevant information about the ski areas that provides more context than List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. They should probably be renamed to be List of... per typical conventions but this is exactly what I'd expect for this kind of quality content that goes beyond just the names and cities in the main list. What kind of explanation do you need here? All the columns are self-explanatory but certainly expanded lead sections are welcome. Just because a table consists of data does not mean it's a database or disallowed. Reywas92^Talk 13:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I created the article in question because I noticed that there was a gap that existed with the existing comparison lists. Lake Tahoe is arguably the most important ski destination in California and Nevada, yet there was no way to compare all of the Lake Tahoe resorts, as they are split between states. Yes, state lists existed, but I would argue that regional lists such as this are more useful, because most people want to compare resorts within a specific geographic region (like Lake Tahoe, which is split between two states). The only prior way was through List of ski areas and resorts in the United States, which is a huge list to try and navigate, and it doesn't provide much information such as elevations or skiable area. By creating this list, I wanted to make a quicker and more efficient way to compare ski resorts within the Tahoe area. The alternative is to open every resort specific article and compare statistics that way. I can see there are issues with the article, such as it having no lead, and the name is not per typical convention, but I am happy to continue working on the article to address these concerns. Marincyclist (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Usually lists like this are named "list of". Perfect valid navigational list, and far more useful than a category since more information can be listed. Dream Focus 13:15, 13 September 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 Draftify‎. There's a clear consensus against keeping this in mainspace, and broad support for draftifying as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Manguelle

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Google News yield no results. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT and also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following:

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT and also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 14:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON applies here, as there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV today for these subjects to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - current but not notable. Maybe someday. Chris1834 Talk 20:44, 17 September 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 National Institute of Fashion Technology. There is a clear consensus against having each as a standalone page, and a unanimous agreement as for the target of the redirect. Owen× ☎ 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Fashion Technology Raebareli

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL per WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk)

Also nominating the following:

(contribs) 10:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity I recommend bundling the nomination of all of the recently created stubs for NIFT campuses (see here: National_Institute_of_Fashion_Technology#Campus) and I support a redirect of each one to National_Institute_of_Fashion_Technology#Campus due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS outside of its target area per WP:BRANCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know there's more. Lol Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave the Kannur one as it is properly cited. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity Kannur campus also lacks citations and most of the information is the almost similar to National Institute of Fashion Technology. I believe this could be redirected too. Charlie (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting them all to National Institute of Fashion Technology is a good WP:ATD since these don't seem to meet WP:NORG on their own. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Institute of Fashion Technology. This is the best choice right now. Charlie (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of them to National Institute of Fashion Technology. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Either they should be merged with National Institute of Fashion Technology, or they should be left as different article. Because they are located at different places and offer different courses.

Also the scope for improvement should be kept in mind (the article(s) is/are also new) because each NIFT has their own achievements, for example, Kolkata NIFT has designed the combat uniform for the Indian Armed Forces (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/digital-disruption-designed-by-nift-new-combat-uniforms-for-the-army/articleshow/88880740.cms). Keeping such potential improvements in mind and the different types of courses they offer. They should either be merged or left alone as different articles. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either let them be merged with National Institute of Fashion Technology, or be left as different article as they are at different places offering different courses as well.

IndianQuest (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to National Institute of Fashion Technology. The different branches can be easily explained in one article. – The Grid (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't delete our college different branch my college is at Kolkata

2402:8100:2A27:62ED:0:0:3969:5B4B (talk) 08:23, 18 September 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 10:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Willoughby

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

I could not found any book talking about her alone. His father is notable but looks like a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too insubstantial: fails on notability. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:12, 16 September 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. ✗plicit 10:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Old Republic: Fatal Alliance

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

Fails WP:NBOOK: being on the NYT bestseller list is not enough to establish notability. Needs another piece of secondary coverage. TheForce.net doesn't seem like a reliable source. Suggesting redirect/merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic#Novels as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Video games. Mika1h (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Library Journal has a review of the book here. Together with the bestseller list, this should fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:NBOOK. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that count as an actual review though? It's marked as a review by the site but there is very little of critical analysis that I expect of a review. It reads more like a plot summary and I'd count that kind of coverage as trivial. --Mika1h (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is rather brief. I see commentary in there, but I understand that that can be a matter of debate. Fortunately I've found another review by IGN here, with slightly more commentary. So overall I remain with my keep opinion, but am not fundamentally opposed to a merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic#Novels as an WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another review in Booklist [49] should be enough combined with those above. Since these are rather short, I agree with Daranios' point about a merge.ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the sources found.Timur9008 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reaching #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list is a good indication of notability. Toughpigs (talk) 18:01, 13 September 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 The Chainsmokers#2023: Summertime Friends. Editors are welcome to discuss a better redirect target. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime Friends

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

I propose this be redirected to The Chainsmokers discography. There is a total lack of sources talking about the album in any substantial capacity. The only two sources on the article are an Apple Music citation for one of the singles, and a chart position on a US component chart (No. 15 on the Billboard Dance/Electronic Albums chart, which was far too low to even rank on the overall top 200 albums of the week). Most sources I can see through a Google search talk about the song "Summertime Friends" and the promotion around it, not the album in a significant manner. Ss112 09:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Chainsmokers#2023: Summertime Friends: found no additional coverage that would get this to a notability pass. Discography page has limited information on the album while the band page has a whole paragraph dedicated to the album. Said paragraph could use some work, especially since it's almost entirely sourced to Apple Music, but it's still more substantial and could be expanded further. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:09, 12 September 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 Tawny Taylor, and redirect Sex and the Single Ghost to it‎. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tawny Taylor

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only work by this author with an article, and appears similarly non-notable:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, United States of America, and Michigan. toweli (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor as multiple books have been the subject of review in RS, which meets NAUTHOR. Redirect Sex and the Single Ghost . Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor. Her books have many reviews and so she passes NAUTHOR. Redirect the book article to it, even the library journal piece has no coverage it's only a listing. Only thing I found was this review of uncertain reliability, which is only one thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tawny Taylor; redirect Sex and the Single Ghost to Tawny Taylor. She's written 50+ erotic novels with many reviews on Internet sites, a few of which may meet Wikipedia standards of reliability; in any case, many of these are listed as references in the chapter about her in the Gale Contemporary Authors book so that's something. But what gets this bio over the line is that two of her other more "mainstream" books written under her pseudonym Tami Dane have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly. Have expanded the article to include more information about her various book series and critical reception, as at the time of nomination, it was mostly just a list of books. Sex and the Single Ghost turns up nothing via Wikipedia Library except that listing in Library Journal. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements and various reviews. Giving the commentary from those secondary sources of books which are not notable in themselves a home here seems the best solution. I.e. merge and redirect Sex and the Single Ghost here. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on arguments above. Its a clear keep. She is a major author. scope_creep^Talk 13:21, 17 September 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!} 07:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HN R200

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

Very small company that only produced three examples of a car. No evidence of significant notability, not everything belongs on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG, although I don't speak Czech and can't speak to the quality of the multiple sources in the article. In some cases, a car like this would be covered in the article for its manufacturer instead of having a separate one, but Hoffmann & Novague does not have an article. It's unclear if the three examples that were built by 2019 are all that will be made, or if production continued beyond that point. --Sable232 (talk) 15:57, 1 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!} 07:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while rather obscure, it appears to pass muster for general notability. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as these are Weak Keeps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 12 September 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!} 07:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koki Sato

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Playing 14 games in Singapore is a very weak claim to notability. No significant coverage. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per others above. Chris1834 Talk 20:35, 17 September 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!} 07:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akiya Wada

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Playing 14 games in Singapore is a very weak claim to notability. No significant coverage. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reason to Keep it here. Non-notable topic with no sigcoverage. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Played less than a season as a pro. no highlights. Chris1834 Talk 20:37, 17 September 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!} 07:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Sambongi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Playing 13 games in Singapore is a very weak claim to notability. No significant coverage. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One year and done. Not notable. Chris1834 Talk 20:41, 17 September 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!} 07:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fumiya Suzuki (footballer, born 1998)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Playing 6 games in Singapore and some in the Japanese third tier is a very weak claim to notability. No significant coverage. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing here. Chris1834 Talk 20:42, 17 September 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!} 07:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Silver Eagle mintage figures

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTSTATS. It is not clear why we have these statistics. Not all facts make good encyclopedia articles, no attempt is made to explain why these figures are of enough importance to give them a separate page. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is cite-able and notable as world bullion repository currency. -MJ (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into American Silver Eagle - This article was WP:BOLDly split without discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. We have arguments to Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 12 September 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. After three weeks, there was no consensus on whether to keep or delete the page. There seems to be a consensus to rename the article to Islamic Law and Constitution, which I went ahead and did. This can be reverted without an AfD if there's consensus on the Talk page to do so. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

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

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep. This book has been translated into English from a language not written in Roman script, so a search in English alone will not suffice for BEFORE. We need to know how to transliterate the title into the original script before we can dispute its notability. This seems to be a reprint of part of, and chapter 2 ("The Islamic Law: Its Introduction in Pakistan") of, a book called [The] Islamic Law and Constitution [50]. This book (see another edition, which may or may not have the chapter: [51]) seems to have a lot of citations (80+ in GScholar), and numerous editions, reprints and translations, and reviews in English [52] and other commentary in English (see eg Google Books). His best known book: [53]. There is also a section "Some Opinions about the First Edition" in a section "Islamic Law and Constitution" [54] which quotes book reviews (1) from J.N.D. Anderson in "International Affairs", London (which is here) (2) from "The Dawn", Karachi (3) from "The Hindustan Times", Dehli and (4) from "The Hindu", Madras. Seems to satisfy TBK, GNG and criteria 1 and (judging from the article on the author) criteria 5 of NBOOK. [We should also have an article on the bibliography of islamic law: see [55] and numerous periodical articles.] James500 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 This is not a reprint - you can find copies of both books online, they have a completely different table of contents and contents. It is not the one chapter of that book, it is a full other book with entirely different contents. I oppose any move because from looking at it it appears to be an entirely different book.

Per Mccapra above I think this is just a translated collection of individual essays with no direct Urdu equivalent. It has nothing to do with the other book. If someone wants to write an article on that book then they can but this is not the same thing. This one has 0 sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, at least some of the text of the 1960 English translation of "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" appears to be taken verbatim from chapter 2 of the 1955 English translation of "Islamic Law and Constitution". To me, the 1960 book looks like a rehash of part of the 1955 book. There are bibliographic sources that say that the books "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" and a number of other apparently derivative books (such as "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State" and "First Principles of the Islamic State") are "A Part of Islamic Law and Constitution": [56]. James500 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 There are plenty of edited collections that have content similarities with one another, with single chapters/essays being duplicated. Just because a work of one author is included in two collections does not make them the same collection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Can you please provide a link to any previous AFDs on this article subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no evidence has been presented in this discussion to suggest the subject meets WP:NBOOK so I still favour a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for context here is the past AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this easy, here is the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (book). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move cum Keep: I support the move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep, as suggested by @James500. The book “Islamic Law and Constitution” consists of two parts, and the book “Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan” is essentially a verbatim reproduction of the first part of “Islamic Law and Constitution.” While speaking of its content list, the main book mentions only the chapters names, the verbatim one includes the subtitles as well. For further content verification, please refer to the following links: The Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan, Islamic Law and Constitution — Ainty Painty (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainty Painty If you want to suggest a move that is fine, but I don't really think you can vote "rewrite", since someone has to do the work for that. I highly doubt anyone will ever rewrite this article, in any case, and shall we change the name it will merely languish the same way it is now but with a different title, with content barely about it. But oh well, that's how it is in any case, and stubs aren't against the rules. I still disagree on a move since I think these are separate topics. Moving in a proper sense here would basically be making a whole other article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA I understand your concerns regarding the move and rewrite. I am willing to take on the task of rewriting the article to ensure it accurately reflects the content and significance of the book. Furthermore, could you please guide me on where to start with the rewrite? Should I begin within the existing article, or is there another approach you would recommend? Since we now know this is part of the aforementioned book, it can serve then as a redirect (after the move). If necessary we can also mention this in the article to provide clarity. Thank you for your cooperation. Ainty Painty (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ainty Painty, just FYI, an AFD can not have a "Move" or "Rewrite" closure. Those are editing choices that can be discussed if an article is "Kept". Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says we cannot decide to move a page at AfD, and I think that WP:NOTBURO applies. James500 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Islamic Law and Constitution if an article is written: This book is an independently reprinted part of Islamic Law and Constitution(the purchasing guide at the back reads "A Part of "Islamic Law and Constitution""). This part does not meet NBOOK, as far as I can tell, but Islamic Law and Constitution does. As such, this article should be deleted, unless an article is written for Islamic Law and Constitution, in which case merging usable material would be better. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:02, 19 September 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 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Blumenfield

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 5 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!} 06:32, 12 September 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 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malo Latinois

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 5 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!} 06:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sandstone Varied Productions

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article, and therefore fails WP:NCORP. Article was created in 2013 by a user named Yvonne Coughlan, who also happens to be the founder of the company. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ireland. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable organisation. WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH are not met. By some distance. This is such a clear cut case that I am genuinely intrigued by the sole "weak keep" recommendation from the previous AfD (and not surprised to see that it came from a blocked/banner editor). In a search within available Irish news sources, for example, the Irish Independent stable of national/regional papers contains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (not even a single trivial passing mention). Same for Irish Times (zero results), RTÉ.ie (zero results), thejournal.ie (nothing - not a sausage), etc. In the Irish Examiner we find just THREE trivial passing mentions. Where barely the name of the org is mentioned. And no depth of coverage (about the org) at all. In terms of the links in the article itself, if one of the company's productions was reviewed in the Evening Echo in 2007 the production company itself was not seemingly named in that review. Of the other two links/sources within the article, one doesn't appear to mention the production company - except by the "RSVP" abbreviation (which could, for all we know, be a different production company or anything). And the other is another barely trivial passing mention. It is also hard to overlook that this article was clearly created by an SPA/COI editor with an overtly promotional intent. Mine is a firm DELETE recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 10:05, 18 September 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!} 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Algami Canal

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

I can only find unreliable sources for this but as there are so many editors interested in military history I put it for discussion as you may know better Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 5 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!} 06:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t find any sources for this online. The other language versions are no help as they’re translated from this version. The Arabic version has no sources either and the Azeri version has sources that are dead or dodgy looking. There are some mentions in low quality Arabic sources but I think they’re all Wikipedia mirrors. I can’t verify anything here at all. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akçakoca Poyraz G.S.K.

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

As far as I can tell they are not notable - even the link from the article to their own website does not work Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 5 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!} 06:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 09:59, 13 September 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!} 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Paul

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, South Africa, and Greece. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some additional WP:RS coverage of Paul: Frieze magazine, The Design Edit, Vice (referenced in the article but needs to be archived), StudioInternational (referenced above)

CaptainAngus (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are several articles in art magazines about her work and its significance. I added one today that I found. I think she meets criteria 2, 3, and 4d of WP:Artist. Nnev66 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, please provide a review of sources and any improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she meets GNG based on reviews in Artforum, Frieze, and Studio International; she's produced a window installation at MoMA. It is quite early in her career, and she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, but after a BEFORE search I think that there's enough significant coverage to support an article based on the general notability guideline. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone, meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aniruddhacharya

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

Contested draftification. Article about self-publicizing Indian religious leader. The article is about what the subject and his followers say about him, not what third parties say. The sources include slideshows of information about the subject, which appear to be paid, and puff pieces and press releases. The article was draftified by User:Chaotic Enby with the statement: it needs better quality sources. They clarified that criticism with: Sources of the type "Know the net worth of X person!" are often celebrity gossip and not up to Wikipedia's reliability standards.. I concur with the criticism of the sources. The author added more sources that were no improvement and ~~resubmitted~~moved it back to mainspace.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.tv9hindi.com	On machine translation, appears to be a promotional slideshow	No	No	No	No
2	www.outlookindia.com	A puff piece, a flattering press release	No	Yes	?	No
3	english.newstrack.com	A discussion of his wealth	No	Yes	?	No
4	newsable.asianetnews.com	A promotional slideshow	No	No	No	No
5	hindi.news18.com	Appears to be a placed story about a conflict with another swami	Probably not	Yes	No	No
6	www.indiatoday.in	A story about the subject's non-appearance on Big Boss	No	Yes	?	No
7	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Another story about non-appearance on Bigg Boss	No	Yes	No	No

Neither the body of the article nor the sources demonstrate independent notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence has been provided if the sources are not independent of the subject. Ignoring the first and the fourth one, the rest are independent and they establish the WP:GNG. Dympies (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand article with sources like this one which significantly covers not only his biography but also covers his controversies. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand article with NPOV as per WP:ATD. The topic seems notable enough to qualify for article namespace in one search. It needs a ton of improvements but that alone is not enough to delete it. About the issue raised by the AFD nominator, there are multiple neutral third party sources on web that exist about the topic. Macrobreed2 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 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. The merger discussion can continue on the Talk, if desired. Star Mississippi 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumor alopecia

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

There is only one source that talks about tumor alopecia and it only includes one small paragraph on the topic:

"Tumor alopecia refers to halr loss in the immediate vicinity of either benlgn or malignant tumors of the scalp. Synngomas, nerve sheath myxomas, and steatocystoma multiplex are benign tumors that may be lim~ted to the scalp and cause alopecia. Alopecia neoplastica 1s the designation glven to halr loss from metastatic tumors, most often from breast or renal carcinoma."^[1]

^ James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

The source provided is a tertiary source I believe so this doesn't have any secondary sources covering it. Also this page reads like a dictionary definition. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath, a medical school textbook (which is what's cited there) is generally considered an ideal source in MEDRS terms.

I also wonder whether you're focusing too closely on the exact name given in that one source, when the subject (i.e., hair loss in the immediate vicinity of either benign or malignant tumors of the scalp) might have other names. One of the two sources in ==Further reading== on that page talks about "neoplasm-related alopecia" and the other is about "Alopecia due to cancer". This review calls it "Hair loss in neoplastic conditions".

It would be undesirable to delete an article about a whole subject if what it really needs is to WP:MOVE it to a different title and add some more content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read over general notability guidelines and saw secondary sources and I think I may have focused too much on that. I was the one that added the further reading sources in an earlier search for some material on the topic. While the original source does distinguish tumor alopecia from Alopecia neoplastica would it be appropriate to merge the pages? I was able to expand the page Alopecia neoplastica a bit. Or possibly mention tumor alopecia on the page Alopecia and redirect there? I will search for literature regarding tumor related alopecia that’s not referred to by that name. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alopecia, or perhaps move to Cancer-related hair loss and expand further? There doesn't seem to be enough to work with here to write a standalone article, and I don't think Alopecia neoplastica and Tumor alopecia need to be separate articles, but this topic definitely warrants mentioning somewhere. I think a standalone article on cancer-related hair loss (incorporating hair loss from both the disease itself and from treatments) could work, with a mention of non-cancerous tumor-induced hair loss in the main alopecia article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is support here for a Merge but not agreement yet on the Merge target article. There has to be consensus on that before this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus on what to do here. What does the nominator think about a possible Merge or Redirect and to what target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 12 September 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 Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. (Edit conflict with relist) There is rough consensus to not keep - the WP:BLP1E rationale has remained unrebutted - but no clear consensus to delete, which makes a redirect to where the matter is already covered the obvious WP:ATD. Sandstein 05:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper

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

Article was just created on 3 September 2024, and only because of his appearance with Tucker Carlson where he said some controversial stuff. This is a WP:BLP1E - person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. WP:NOTNEWS also applies here, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Conservatism, History, Military, Politics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the traffic figures on the page prove the subject is notable. Users are looking for this info. Deleters seem to have a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairmanmeow (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t necessarily mean they are interested in Cooper personally, just Tucker’s interview with him. The interview seems to be more notable than the man himself.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Deleting Cooper from Wikipedia will just help cement the well-deserved reputation Wikipedia has for censoring the right. This man is brilliant. Those that wish him to be silenced are irrelevant little creatures. 70.125.248.138 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC) — 70.125.248.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as per nom. Xegma(talk) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just curious, is it Huffpo, Haaretz, or TNR that you think is a subpar source?~~ Googleguy007 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xegma, we are more interested in what the sources say than in your opinion of the subject as a person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three. None of those three sources directly and explicitly state that Cooper is a "Nazi apologist". Please see WP:HEADLINES - News headlines are not a reliable source. So since they fail to verify a contentious claim about a BLP, that makes them subpar. Those eight citations in the lead sentence are a classic example of WP:REFBOMB. For a BLP, Wikipedia prefers high-quality sources that actually verify the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz? You're using a clear biased source on the subject. Watch the interview - nothing you have written is even remotely true. It's just more ADL nonsense against someone who is merely questioning the narrative. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's "ADL nonsense"? AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is ADL? Gusbenz (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADL = Anti-Defamation League. An American based International born from the Jewish nationalists the B'Nai Brith in the wake of the death of convicted child murderer & then leader of the local Brith faction, Mr Leo Frank. 61.69.242.203 (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Leo Frank was the victim of a lynching, and historians today largely agree that he was wrongly convicted.2604:2D80:7186:600:0:0:0:1CAD (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, but I apologize for the immature and unprofessional way I acted in the above comment, I should have been better than that Googleguy007 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic BLP1E. You don't meet notability requirements on Wikipedia by appearing on a podcast. Not do you meet notability requirements by making abundantly false and disgusting comments. AusLondonder (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, "false" and "disgusting" according to whom? Questioning the narrative is neither of those. Everything Cooper discussed was referenced from various sources and this can be seen in his Substack. Truths you don't like doesn't make them false or disgusting. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do follower counts impact notability? I'd say so, but I'm unsure of Wikipedia's policy. Has 260k on Twitter (https://twitter.com/martyrmade) 111k on Substack (https://substack.com/@martyrmade). Not a fan of some of his comments but the deletion seems biased. Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC) — Cosmokiwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Seems like this Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC) — Cosmokiwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We generally don't assign notability based on social media followers alone. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Abundantly false and disgusting"? Have you listened to the entire interview or have you ever listened to one of Cooper's podcast series? He does NOT deny the Nazi's murdered Jews. In fact, his "Fear and Loathing In the New Jerusalem" series covers Nazi atrocities to the Jews in great detail. This is classic 'cut and paste', intellectually lazy mob reaction. He currently has the most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts due to being one of the most intellectually rigorous historians regarding these subjects (he read 80 books and 1500 articles for his Israel series). It will likely grow. 160.2.133.235 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either."

Indeed, sir. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the views that Cooper has expressed regarding the Holocaust and Hitler are "truths" you shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia. See WP:NONAZIS. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper did not deny the holocaust. Who wrote this wiki? 78.70.226.184 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What are the "sub-par sources"? See WP:RSPADL. I think most people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the ADL. When I nominated the article there were eight citations in the lead sentence that I considered sub-par, they have since been removed. And people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable, only if they meet the criteria outlined in our policies and guidelines for notability. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK so irrelevant now. I know that editors have discussed standing up special notability guidelines for journalists/writers/etc. as we have for academics and some other groups, but I don't think that's actually happened yet. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the WP:BLP1E material in the last section, the sourcing is primary or passing mentions not meeting WP:SIGCOV. I don't see a pass for WP:AUTHOR or other creative professional categories, either. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "notable for one event" and "low profile individual":

I can see the argument for item 1 (Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event) or taking issue with the sources in general, but there's really no justification for deletion considering "each of three conditions" have not been met by a mile (you really don't cover points 2 and 3 enough at all) Clearly, the warning "often misapplied in deletion discussions" applies here: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile," and this clearly fits the bill. Suggesting otherwise suggests that perhaps your emotions or personal views are getting in the way of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wikipedia should include information about this person and their broad reach / cultural impact, particularly now that he's been all over the news. If available information is currently limited, this article should be flagged in some other way, not marked for deletion. Again, the phrasing of "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable" is extremely clear, even for the average user. 24.34.221.193 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should provide some published reliable sources that have significant coverage about this person who is actively seeking out media attention to establish his notability, other than just headlines and in the news items that have been recently reported in the 24 hour news cycle. Looks like to me the news cycle has left this person in the dust and moved on to Russian disinformation. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response seems a little confrontational, and you're very much mistaken about this matter being left out of the news cycle / "left in the dust": 2 articles in the Wall Street journal (one opinion, one not), the Washington Examiner, and the Week just came out today. There was also an article in the Washington examiner and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Almost every major paper has published stories on this, and your contention that every single source is unreliable doesn't really add up. Tucker Carlson is hugely popular and influential, and he referred to this person as one of the most important popular historians in America. I understand this might spark strong feelings for many people, but deleting this page is really not the answer. 24.34.221.193 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious [WP:BLP1E] issue. Having "notoriety" on twitter doesn't change that. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Tucker Carlson interview with Darryl Cooper. Cooper himself is not notable because of BLP1E, but this interview definitely seems to be notable because of the controversy it has brought Carlson and Musk. The White House has now weighed in with a denunciation. See [57]. However, it’s telling that the condemnation focuses more on Carlson "giving a microphone" to Cooper, than it does on Cooper himself. There is precedent for articles about specific interviews, see the article for Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin. The Cooper interview has caused a similar amount of controversy, even though unlike the Putin case, the guest was someone who is not otherwise notable apart from the interview.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:E890:70AA:7E06:BEF4 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1014:B08A:AA77:E890:70AA:7E06:BEF4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, he is only known for his appearance on Carlson's show. There are insufficient reliable sources to describe his career. It would be helpful for example to know if someone Carlson calls a historian actually has a degree or any published work in history. TFD (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A historian? I see no credentials. 2603:7080:5000:A807:4DCF:3EE0:5E8B:C122 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need credentials to be a historian? He publishes his work for all to see. Most popular historians do not have PhD. 136.242.8.20 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be considered a historian, a person typically needs to have at least a master's degree in history, demonstrate strong research skills, analyze historical evidence, and be able to communicate their findings effectively through writing and other mediums. It seems that Cooper fails this consideration, particularly in his apparent inability to "analyze historical evidence" and "communicate their findings effectively". Cooper's "findings" are basically his opinion and conspiracy theories. There is no criteria for a person to be considered a historian when the only appellation is an introduction by Tucker Carlson claiming that Mr. Cooper is “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Tucker Carlson was simply trying to provide credibility and puff up his guest so his listeners would believe Cooper. Cooper isn't a historian. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of vids of him on YouTube interviewing on many popular podcasts, about 10 months ago, re: Israel/Palestine, where he seems to receive generally and glaringly positive comments from all political spectrums. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into Tucker Carlson, is WP:BLP1E, is more about tucker platforming racists than anything. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Merge into Tucker Carlson.

If this information about Cooper is worthy of being recorded in Wikipedia, it should be included in the Tucker Carlson page. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Merge into Tucker Carlson. Wyattroberts (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sounds sane. Gusbenz (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a Merge into Tucker Carlson. I fully agree that this is a WP:BLP1E worthy of mention in the Carlson article, but not a separate page for Cooper, who (at the present time) passes neither the WP:LPI nor the WP: SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator that he is only known for this one distasteful appearance on Tucker Carlson. That shouldn't pass notability; it should barely merit a mention on Carlson's show page. --FeldBum (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct. Let's delete this folks? Gusbenz (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He had been on many popular podcasts about 10 month ago, where he was widely praised by all political spectrums for his analysis of the Israel/Gaza conflict. Simple search on YouTube can find the vids and glowing commentary. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would feel less arm-wavy if you were to link to such praise and provide a sample quote from a reputable SME. "Just Google it" is insufficient, especially if the end result is random YouTube comments. NapoliRoma (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the "praise" is coming from mainstream media outlets, YouTube videos aren't reliable sources per WP:SELFPUBLISHED. seefooddiet (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources already in the article plus those from our longer article in German prove notability, provide sufficient biographical information and are reliable enough.John Z (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the sources on that article, and they're all primarily about his appearance on Tucker Carlson. The articles are largely about the views from the context of the interview. I don't really believe that it's enough for notability. If he had more continued notability across time then I'd be convinced, but so far it's just more of the same. seefooddiet (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German version was created at the same time as the English version, and only because of Coopers appearance with Tucker Carlson, so the German article is also a BLP1E, as evidenced by the amount of content dedicated to the Carlson interview. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This source mentions that Cooper attracted some attention in 2021 for defending Trump’s election fraud claims. Whether that’s enough to avoid the BLP1E issue, I’m not sure.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC) {{subst:SPA|2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E}[reply]
I don't think it is. It's a two-sentence mention of a previous instance (a Twitter thread). seefooddiet (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take the word of the Washington Post.--Kriddl (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single appearance on a streaming talk show, no matter how controversial, does not establish notability for the subject, nor do the other passing mentions. WP should not be in the business of promoting obscure personalities.- Donald Albury 18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He appeared also in regard to the Big Lie[58] It was not a single event. --Kriddl (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how a niche article about a delusional Twitter thread establishes notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Washington Post niche?--Kriddl (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how is that relevant? Lostsandwich (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The public attention he has created several times makes him notable. I also question the motives of the deletion request. Holocaust denial and praise of Hitler is is not controversial and must not be described as such! Also I have to say that I'm outraged that a Wikipedia editor has the guts to claim that it's other Wiki authors who "describe him as a Nazi apologist". As if this is a question? Again! Cooper has engaged in Holocaust denial and praised Hitler! Please don't accept this deletion request, when it looks that politically motivated! Greetings from someone who has studied history in Germany! Andol (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andol, I don't know whether or not your being serious but your comments don't make a lot of sense. Please present an argument based in policy after a careful review of the sources, don't offer your personal opinion on the subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides his media notoriety which others have mentioned, it should be noted that he has a rapidly growing audience and was recently the #1 podcast in the world on the iTunes charts, so his relevance is very likely to grow to the point that he will have to be re-added soon anyway. HonestManBad (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then things should be addressed when it is prudent to do so, not "just in case". Lostsandwich (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepJust came across his name because of a statement from members of the House of representatives criticizing Tucker Carlson for giving him a platform. This mere fact makes him notorious enough in my opinion Kimdime (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a WP:BLP1E. There's simply not enough reliable sourcing to construct a proper biography of this individual without having to rely on self-published sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please do not get sidetracked by whether or not Cooper is famous or infamous, what his views are or Tucker Carlson or how many followers he has on Twitter or your opinion of him. Notability, and whether this article falls under WP:BLP1E, relies on sources and I'd like to see a source assessment table or some effort made to go through the sources to state which ones might provide SIGCOV. Please focus on policy and not Cooper's personality or political opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 12 September 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 The Great Pottery Throw Down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pottery Throw Down series 1

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

The sources used explain the tv series as a whole. So, it might be a good merge/redirect candidate with just the ratings pushed through. The target would be the main article The Great Pottery Throw Down.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The content itself appears to have no issues, but does not stand alone as an article and thus should be moved into the main article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. The result tables of the individual episodes seem overkill, but the result summaries and the ratings are probably worthwhile. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems a good course. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 13 September 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 03:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Kitchener Rangers season

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything other than press releases. A redirect target could be the 2023–24 OHL season. Conyo14 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, junior-level hockey teams don't warrant separate articles for their seasons. A redirect to 2023–24 OHL season is OK, but I would prefer an outright deletion. PK T(alk) 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any independent reliable coverage for the season would be local coverage from Kitchener-Waterloo regional newspapers. Otherwise it cites only press releases from the Ontario Hockey League. Please note that a previous conversation, did not have concensus for deleting. Flibirigit (talk) 11:28, 13 September 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 Paula Abdul#Tours and residencies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Up! to Canada Tour

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

Abdul has announced the tour has been cancelled. [59]Pillowdelight (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section in the artists "History" section. An announced and subsequently cancelled tour will likely still be worth a mention there, making it a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are tens of cancelled concert tours on this site. Just because it was cancelled does not mean it isn't notable, therefore I don't think redirecting or deleting is necessary here. The subject is significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to doing whatever, I did create the page. Although, I only added two refs to the page initially when I created it — my plan was to expand it by adding in reviews and the setlist. It did receive some coverage but I wouldn’t say it was significant. I'll add more due to the tour being cancelled. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has established notability to begin with though, so the bigger question would be, how does it pass WP:NTOUR? Does it? Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it was announced by many Canadian presses. But majority of all of them stated the same information. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 and Pillowdelight, doesn't that meet WP:NTOUR? It was covered in multiple independent reliable sources when it was announced and when it was cancelled. Sources include Billboard and Rolling Stone just to mention a few. Just that the editors/creator did not introduce such references to the article and I don't know why. dxneo (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability part of NTOURS that no one has proven yet. Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the tour technically didn't happen. I would rather suggest just deleting the page altogether, the tour was merely just a tour throughout Canada, Abdul wasn't promoting any sort of album nor single on it. So it really isn't sufficient enough. Pillowdelight (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's why I'm sticking with my redirect stance. Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even bother redirecting it either, I would say just delete it. Pillowdelight (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro is definitely disappointed that your was cancelled 😅 I just thought deletion wasn't worth it but okay. dxneo (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not refer to me as "Bro". I'm a fan of Miss Abdul but I’m not sure what that has anything to do with keeping the page up. You seem very adamant on keeping the page but have failed to expand the article in any shape or form. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is the suggestion a Redirect to Paula Abdul#Tours and residencies?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paula Abdul#Tours and residencies. Doesn't meet the notability guideline since it doesn't have sustained coverage, but it's still a potential search term. hinnk (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paula Abdul#Tours and residencies per hinnk; if the tour is relaunched restoration is quite easy to do and the page history will allow rebuilding of the article in that case with the existing sources. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 12 September 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 Overload (Sugababes song). Discarding the canvassed votes, and those not based on P&G, we're left with a rough consensus to redirect. If and when sources emerge that establish independent notability, as predicted by some here, a separate article may be suitable. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Situation (A Little Sound and Sugababes song)

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}}.

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

Fails WP:NSONG, the sources provided is either Primary, questionable for reliability (correct me if I am wrong), and the Guardian one ~~is just a Passing Mention.~~ does not even mention the song and the sources added are not even related to the subject Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage in sources, samples a very popular song and has been in the charts this week. Speedy close. 2A00:23EE:1620:6BEF:253A:B21:2730:AF6 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly provide any WP:SECONDARY and non-WP:TRIVIAL sources you find? Also just because it is popular does not mean it is good for wikipedia see WP:ITSPOPULAR Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] This is secondary sourcing.2A00:23EE:1690:1BCF:9993:F508:FDB6:6A37 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anymore? per WP:SIGCOV Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ackroyd, Stephen (30 August 2024). "A Little Sound: I honestly didn't think this summer could top last year's". Read Dork. Retrieved 31 August 2024.

Keep: Unsure as why this has been nominated. Well sourced and structured and passes WP:NSONG from what I can see. 90.192.76.192 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the previous respondents. This article is significant to the chronology of singles released by the Sugababes, documents current trends in the pertinent genres, and is likely to receive further media coverage. In my view, it would be infeasible to include the contents of this article to a satisfying extent within a different one. PerfidiousSnatch (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against Draftify it for the moment per WP:TOOSOON. As of now, there is no reliable sources I could find to determine it's notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerfidiousSnatch: also, just because it is important for chronology does not mean it is good for wikipedia per WP:ITSIMPORTANT, I author 3 songs articles by now. And I really want to add some but it lacks WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either A Little Sound or Overload (Sugababes song). All references provided are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL and I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. I took the Guardian source mentioned by the nominator out as it does not mention "Situation", only "Overload". It doesn't matter that this might get more coverage - I might win the lottery tomorrow!--Laun chba ller 07:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I though I read it lmfao, this is even worst. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Skiddle and the Guardian sources predate A Little Sound releasing anything. They can't possibly back up anything about the song. (I already took them out once and was reverted.)--Laun chba ller 11:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the reason why I tag this for AfD, those articles was release way way before it is was release of the song Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, could do with some better sourcing but happy to work on this if necessary. Should Keep failing as an option, I'm okay with redirecting to one of the above articles aforementioned by Launchballer, but it should be one or the other and not necessarily both. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above Pragnell1957 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, but also it has now charted in New Zealand. Pragnell1957 (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that you can't vote twice, New Zealand Hot Singles is a component chart and does not count towards notability.--Laun chba ller 11:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has charted in the UK now also. The deletion page should be deleted. The majority say Keep. Pragnell1957 (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deletion is not a vote basis but a concensus basis. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am wondering why Miminity (talk) was so quick to nominate for deletion. The song has not even been out a full charting week, and most of the chart news (as well as reviews from reputable music publications) will come out between today and Monday. While I would 100% support moving this information to the "Overload (Sugababes song)" page if the chart launch is softer than a full page would warrant, I would have waited until the initial chart impact week has passed to make that decision. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsskyscrapers: 3 sources are found from this week. If this "will get coverage soon". This is a clear case of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, they are questionable sources for reliability. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the song has appeared on three charts and the vast majority of people on this thread say the article shouldn't be deleted, so.... Pragnell1957 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:SUPPORT, it does not matter if there are may "keeps" than "delete" votes. It's about discussing if the subject is notable if not and presenting evidence to prove it.

Also, those are only charts, please read WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Yes it is charted in a national level but remember Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) and the general guideline is still applicable here Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. more or less it still fails the General Notability Guideline or WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well sourced article of a charting song. Shouldn't have been nominated and certainly not in it's first charting week 86.187.236.81 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow time for established editors conversant in notability to weigh in. I have semi'ed the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overload (Sugababes song), or alternatively A Little Sound, not opposed to draftifying. The song's chart positions do not suggest notability under WP:NSONG at this point. It hasn't appeared on the UK Singles Chart (only the component charts), and it hasn't appeared on the New Zealand Singles Chart (it reached 38 out of 40 on the Hot Singles Chart). The press coverage also doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG. The most substantial article is from Sport Playlists, which mostly just quotes the press material. The other articles don't provide much detail, and the Pedestrian, Guardian, Skiddle articles don't discuss "Situation" at all. hinnk (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overload (Sugababes Song). The two songs are related, but this new one may be WP:TOOSOON. It lacks WP:SIGCOV, and the Guardian article cited is about Overload (Sugababes Song) - it does not mention this song.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:49, 12 September 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!} 02:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nychow Moore

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO. At best WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 06:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 12 September 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!} 01:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo (2014 film)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No reviews listed. It was submitted to a lot of film festivals and won awards at some of them, but I think this is misleading. None of the film festivals are notable, as near as I can tell. And they give out a staggering number of awards, for example when I track down the "Award of Excellence Best Shorts Competition", this movie was one of 40 winners of that award for that month (yes, month, there were hundreds of winners of the award that year). For the next one, "Platinum Awards Filmmakers of the Year Film Festival", it was one of 15 winners of the apparently non-notable award that year. The next one "Platinum Award Best story Documentary & Short International Movie Award" sounds prestigious but it was one of 12 winners of that award that year. And those are just the winners at the top, soon it's just "official selection". I don't even see a single user review on sites like IMDB, let alone published reviews that could be used as sources. I don't mean to belittle the movie or these film festivals but they just don't seem notable. Here2rewrite (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator’s well-reasoned rationale. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's exceedingly difficult to establish notability for short films as the vast majority tend to fly under the radar even when they have notable persons involved and/or screen at major, well known film festivals. This one seems to have gone through the normal process with short films in that it was released, it went to various film festivals and so on. The awards aren't really usable as none of them are from outlets Wikipedia would see as major enough to give partial or total notability. None of the film festivals are major enough to give notability for screening there either. This is really limited more to things like Cannes's Un Certain Regard, where getting screened there is the equivalent of receiving a major award. I couldn't really find any other coverage either. It's possible that there is coverage that never made it onto the internet, but I can't find anything to suggest that this would really exist. Like the nominator said, this is no knock against the film or its creator, just that it doesn't pass criteria for NFILM, which isn't that easy to pass. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:09, 13 September 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!} 01:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lü Xue'an

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Undertook a search for name in Chinese and did not yield much. Player of lower Chinese league China League Two. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to his Japanese Wikipedia article, he's played for the Shonan Bellmare, making him a professional player who's played in Japan's top tier. Adding nomination to the Japan list. _dk (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Japanese, but what I do read is the numbers beside the Japanese club in the infobox: 0. In other words he did not play in any tier. The English article has the Japan spell as one of his youth clubs, i.e. not professional. Geschichte (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _dk (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, the creator made a lot of articles that (barely) fit with the guidelines of the day, now obsolete, and do not fit with current guidelines. Cleaning it up is a large, but necessary undertaking. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' – Fails in WP:GNG, or at least, in WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Probably not enough to save the article but have fleshed it out a bit. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough here. Chris1834 Talk 20:31, 17 September 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.

[n378-1] James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

[dork-2] Ackroyd, Stephen (30 August 2024). "A Little Sound: I honestly didn't think this summer could top last year's". Read Dork. Retrieved 31 August 2024.

[1]

[1]