Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 7

Recent AfDs:� ��Today� � Yesterday ��

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

< September 06	September 08 >

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 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. (With no suggestion of notability increasing in the next few months, draftification would likely be backdoor deletion by G13.) asilvering (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahaby Gholy

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

I'm a little unsure about this article, as there was a decent amount of coverage on him due to his performance at the 2024 ASEAN U-16 Championship, but a lot of it is routine and/or simply focused on that one event, which does not show or suggest actual notability. Generally, I see this as a WP:TOOSOON situation, because he is only 15 years old, plays for a youth team, and only has coverage related to a single tournament in which he played well. Anwegmann (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 05:07, 9 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 11:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gölcük Plateau

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

I found a cite https://izmir.ktb.gov.tr/EN-348122/picnic-spots.html but that seems to be İzmir not Konya Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'ed articles cannot be soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 19:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 8 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!} 05:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fasl-ı Cedid

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

Probably need a native speaker to figure out whether this is notable from sources such as http://bodrumkoro.org/cevdetcagla.html Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find sources like [1] and [2] that mention the subject; also many other reliable sources point out that Santuri Hilmi Bey, the person considered to be the representative of this musical ensemble (or style) is the grandfather of the composer of the current Turkish national anthem, Osman Zeki Üngör. I believe there is a plausible potential to find more sources if we could search the offline archives or books, based on the references given for the subject in these kinds of academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:54, 27 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!} 19:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is also discussed in two other academic papers I found here and here. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is discussed by quite a few sources. [3][4] Aintabli (talk) 23:28, 9 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 Do the Right Thing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Raheem

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

This article fails WP:NFCHAR. This character does not rise to the level of significance to warrant a dedicated article. This subject can be sufficiently covered in the parent article on the film. Recommend merging it back in it there. No other character, including more significant ones, have dedicated articles either.

The film, not this specific character, are the focus of references in reliable sources. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a lot of scholarly papers about Radio Raheem in google scholar, and these are just articles from the past few years. [5][6][7][8] I'm always on the fence about articles that focus on a key plot element, because it's unclear how you distinguish reception of the film from the reception of the events that take place during the movie. (e.g.: would we have a separate article for The ending of The Sixth Sense? Or Titanic (Vehicle from Titantic)?) At the very least, this seems like a merge as an WP:ATD. But I'd like to hear from other editors first. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was talk here of a possible Merge. User:Shooterwalker, what is your final opinion here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're leaving the decision to just two editors, I don't feel comfortable deleting or merging, in this specific case. You can interpret my vote for a procedural !keep until more editors can offer an opinion. (As for the content, I reiterate that there are sources, but most of them seem to talk about him in terms of the film's ending -- that is, their analysis of the character's death is their analysis of the film itself. So I keep wondering if this is really a separate topic.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Do the Right Thing, which already mentions some but not all of the info. There has been enough real-world impact for WP to cover this, but it's still only a character from a single movie, and the article isn't even that long. I think it would be better editorially to cover this within the film context. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:37, 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 Martin Lisius. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chasers of Tornado Alley: Touching the Sky

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. If there should be WP:ATD, there can be a possible redirect to the director and writer, Martin Lisius. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Lisius -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Lisius (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source I could find is this review in Film Threat. A second reliable source is needed to establish notability. The other sources in the article are either unreliable or not significant coverage. My searches for sources did not find additional significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 9 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!} 22:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Mohammed

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability.-- فيصل (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Did my best to save this but could not find sources to support it. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find any meaningful coverage of the topic, delete. --Alon9393 (talk) 16:32, 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!} 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muna Al Gurg

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability.-- فيصل (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per these sources [9][10][11][12][13]. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass GNG. Relinus (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Due to notability of sources and position in the middle east(Trivia Kiwi Nut (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: The subject looks notable and current coverage is plenty to meet WP:BIO. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should stay on Wikipedia for a few key reasons:

Notability: The subject clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are multiple reliable sources that cover her work and achievements, like the CEO Magazine/Arabian Business listing her among the "Women of Influence in the Arab World 2021," and Gulf News discussing her recognition in the "Emirates Women's Award." Publications like The National have also featured her several times, covering both her professional impact and her significant charitable efforts (e.g., donations to the neonatal unit at a West Bank hospital).
Verifiability: The information in the article is backed up by credible sources like The National, Gulf News, Arabian Business, Emirates Woman, HSBC, and the London Business School. These references make the content verifiable and in line with Wikipedia's standards.
Neutrality: The article currently presents a balanced and factual view of the subject’s accomplishments and community work. It avoids promotional language and focuses on objective, sourced information.
Room for Improvement: Instead of deleting the article, we could focus on improving it. I’m happy to help by adding more sources, expanding on certain sections, and making sure the content stays neutral.
Unique Contribution: This article adds valuable information about a notable figure in the business and philanthropic sectors in the UAE, which isn’t covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Her leadership roles, charitable work, and influence in various organizations highlight her significance, not just locally but internationally as well.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be kept. I’m also open to working with other editors to ensure it meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thanks for considering my perspective! Alma 0099 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is Alma 0099's only edit on Wikipedia ever. Geschichte (talk) 06:51, 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 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!} 22:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majida Al Azazi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability.-- فيصل (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page about the first Emirati woman to receive a DBA in supply chain management and industries from the UAE University, apparently active only in the United Emirates and in the Persian language, so she does not qualify according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the English WP. Alon9393 (talk) 03:52, 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. Happy to restore to draft if someone is able to identify a reliable source confirming his existence. Star Mississippi 13:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anabwani I of Bunyoro

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

This appears to be a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. The article was created by User:Anabwani2007, whose only edits consist of creating and editing this article, as well as adding a mention of Anabwani to Omukama of Bunyoro. None of the links presently given in the article even mention Anabwani. I wasn't able to find even a mention in reliable sources either. A Ugandan newspaper, Daily Monitor, mentions him in an article, but that's it (and their list is sourced to the monarchy's website anyway, where he's similarly merely mentioned once). toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Uganda. toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep most sources on the article are self-published, however per WP:MONARCH he is considered automatically notable as a sovereign ruler. Azarctic (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue is, I'm not sure if he's even real (I haven't seen a mention of him predating the 2010s), and even if we count that particular newspaper article as reliable (which I'm not certain that it is), the only thing we can say is that he existed, which isn't enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the Daily Monitor holds a left-leaning editorial bias and is reasonably fact-based; however, they poorly source information. The articles does really need more reliable sources for verification which is why I made my vote a weak keep. Azarctic (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note that the source used for this was likely oral, and his being mentioned in a literate source should be enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt of him being genuine

Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only source stems back to an honours mill that just had a half-dozen articles deleted within the last month for self-published promo. How is this any different if it’s all stemming from an interested party? —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious at best. Each source finds its way back to a self-published honours mill. Wikipedia is not here to boost the claims of unreferenced, unverifiable pedigrees. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 24 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!} 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did a search, and there does seem to be quite a few sources on the topic, so that mostly rules being a hoax. And of coarse WP:MONARCH makes the topic notable. Lordseriouspig 20:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link some of those sources? toweli (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If sources exist, add some to the article. Just saying sources exist and not providing any, does not improve the state that the article is in. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. He might have existed, but right now this page is borderline TNT. Can someone please adopt this article and fix it? Bearian (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't keep this; we can barely tell if this person even existed. I found zero scholarly sources whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 07:11, 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!} 22:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambilstar Sunn

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

He had a limited professional career and I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in line with WP:SPORTBASIC. I could find basic match reports like Hub Network and E-Pao. I also found The Hard Tackle, which mentions him once in a squad list and once in the main prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Meghalaya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:06, 9 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!} 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football coaches with 20 ties

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV covering this grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find any sources that would help meet WP:NLIST. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbitrary arbitrariness. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are just coaches who had long careers in those early days when ties were more common...it's not like they were known particularly for trying to tie games. No sources saying this is anything but user-generated trivia. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Aspirex (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Howard Hancock's teams played to a tie in almost 15% of the games he coached. An interesting tidbit. If this list is deleted, it would be worthwhile to add the detailed information to his biography (which currently links here). Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could a prospective editor add the info to his bio if the list gets deleted? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julião (footballer, born 1998)

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

Similar case to Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares, which was deleted here. Having caps is no longer a 'free pass' and Julião needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC to be kept. The best sources that I can find are database sources, much like the one already referenced in the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:06, 9 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. As a case has been made for improvement being possible. Brainchannels' opinion has been included in this assessment, thanks for flagging it. Star Mississippi 13:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen-Craig Aristei

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is my first article and I want it to be the best possible. Is the question here about notability? Thanks. Rkg5514 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @SafariScribe -- sorry for the repost, not trying to bludgeon but still learning the mechanics here...Thanks for responding so quickly. As this individual is a music publisher and manager, rather than any kind of creative professional, I am not sure that WP:NAUTHOR applies in this instance. Same for WP:MUSICIAN as this person is not a musician, but rather an associated individual on the business side of the industry... Rkg5514 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: At present we can't determine much. The article suffers from WP:NOTINHERITED and lack of credible referencing. Draftification will allow the creating editor to work in peace and quiet 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good -- so this would me moving the article in Draftify and working on it there? Am I permitted to do this on my own? Thanks. Rkg5514 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rkg5514 At this stage it is considered an out of process thing for it to be moved during a deletion discussion, but opinions vary on that. If you, as the creating editor, request draftification then there is an argument to close this discussion to meet your request, provided no-one has offered an opinion to delete it in the intervening period. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If much of his notability stems from his time with the Warner Raiders, then I'd expect to see an article there. General Manager of Warner sounds like a good start (although just what is the 'General Manager' in that context?), but that would need to be sourced, and should be easily sourceable.

Draftify. I just can't tell if they're notable or not from what's here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added source on GM... Rkg5514 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the comment left on the discussion talk page by Brainchannels, and consider whether it shoudl be incorporated in the eventual closing decision. `I have encouraged them to leave it in th discussion itself 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Timtrent thanks for alerting me -- I'll wait to see if @Brainchannels weighs in here, but briefly, I respectfully disagree with his assessment on two fronts: 1. Warner Music during the 1970s certainly was connected to hits (and I've cited artists he signed to the label) and 2. I'm just not sure "No awards. No big name association. Public doesn't recognize his face" makes somebody unnotable, especially somebody whose work is on the business end of a forward-facing field. There are no awards ceremonies for music publishers and managers to get up and take a bow, but Music Publishing is its own category on Wikipedia... Rkg5514 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rkg5514 The only issue is that technically I believe their comment makes it impossible to close early as Draftify. But no matter. Consensus will prevail. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it will! Rkg5514 (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - unlike the vast majority of producers, I can see lots of book sources that mention him. Whether they count as significant is another question. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Doesn't appear to pass WP:BASIC to me, however as this is a recently created article and there is some disagreement about whether it is notable or not, sending to draft will give editors a chance to demonstrate that it is notable. TarnishedPath^talk 07:39, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheendra Venkatesh

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Working as a PR officer doesn't merit a Wikipedia article since there is no WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

There is a article " Diamond Babu ". He too is a PRO in Tamil Film Industry. Sudheerbs (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page reads as WP:PROMO. Out of 13 sources on the page, 7 are unreliable sources and the 6 others are very poor with passing mention. Fails notability. The subject's achievements are not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sir, Which are the unreliable sources? Sudheerbs (talk) 09:03, 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!} 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambroz Kapaklija

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

Very short football career, so looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, though I did find this. Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:05, 9 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.

ITT Family Games

The result was Speedy Deleted. (non-admin closure) Bbb23 talk contribs deleted page ITT Family Games (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)‎

If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone with a registered account may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.
MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 21:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Originally looked like a copyvio, coming a smidge too close for my liking to this at first glance. The sources that i’m finding on this subject are either lists, which don’t actually say anything about the subject, or user generated sites. Nothing relevant on the other 3 areas of WP:BEFORE. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 7 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!} 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber

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

I couldn't find evidence to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches; non-notable. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sketch doesn't meet WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is unsourced, and searches are bringing up some mentions, but nothing that would be considered significant coverage. There were only two sketches, which I do not think really meets the threshold for it to be considered recurring. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 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 Borgo Press as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenos Books

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the company in reliable sources. The only source in the article is a database listing. The article was created by someone who described themselves as "one of the editors at Xenos Books". toweli (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Borgo Press, of which this was an associated imprint. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the publisher's notability --Loewstisch (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Loewstisch you voted keep but your words don't indicate that. Did you mean a merge or a delete vote? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I mean delete vote, thank you for your correction Loewstisch (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete if it be confusing to redirect when Borgo Press doesn't mention Xenos Books). Checking NewspaperArchive and ProQuest I was able to turn up two one-sentence passing mentions. From a 1993 book review: "While the publisher, tiny Xeros Books of Riverside, Calif., struggles to bring out 2,000 more copies...". From a 1995 publishing industry event: "Xenos Books, a small house that publishes a variety of subjects, will be represented by editor Karl Kvitko." This does not sigcov make. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Borgo Press as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 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!} 23:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devouring the Prophecy

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

After checking google I am unable to find proper citations, other than blogs. From the existing citations 3 are album listings and 1 is a review from a blogger, so in my opinion this one does not meet the notability guidelines. Drushrush (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Drushrush (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No album reviews in what Project Music has listed as RS [14]. Metal Archives [15], Grooveyard [16], delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any RS for this either. Geschichte (talk) 06:45, 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. asilvering (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SoFaygo

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

Practically all the sources are either hype sites, primary sources, unreliable sources, or affiliated with SoFagyo. A cursory search on google shown not a single reliable source covering him. OhHaiMark (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. OhHaiMark (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep These sources should be enough. Although they are mostly interviews, there are portions of the articles that are not. He also satisfies WP:SINGER by having a single that has been certified platinum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberdog958 (talk • contribs) 00:47, September 9, 2024 (UTC)
Strong Keep SoFaygo has a Gold certified single and has received consistent coverage in multiple sources considered reliable by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE including XXL with him being an XXL freshman: [17], Complex: [18], HipHopDX: [19], and HotNewHipHop: [20]. The claim that "a cursory search on google shown not a single reliable source covering him" is almost laughable as little research shows that he has been covered extensively in the past. Célestin Denis (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the reliable sources identified above I also found a staff written bio at AllMusic here. He also passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 3 with a Platinum selling record (which is higher than a Gold Record), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Stars (1993 film)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Searched for sources but couldn't find, hence no WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and France. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Please do BEFOREs in the original language of the films if sources in English are not available. A lot of significant coverage in reliable sources, including reviews. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw this as Keep because I did no before on the original French title. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination . Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:29, 9 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!} 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoShare

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

No establishment of sustained notability using WP:RS Amigao (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reviews for this software, no mentions in RS. What's now in the article isn't helpful either, non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Books dedicate about a paragraph each, which isn't long enough even combined. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 8 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!} 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Paul-Enenche

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

A ministry's creative director provides no inherent notability nor grounds for a redirect thereto, and she was covered for some passing stories around her wedding, but sourcing is mostly unsubstantial and inappropriate for a BLP. Should this close as a redirect, suggest protection as it will only be re-created. Star Mississippi 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Christianity, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No SNG to backup notability. Sources present are seen on a search does not establish notability of this subject. Like I stated in the mother’s deletion discussion, a redirect would also bring us back to another AfD in few weeks; so I suggest SALTing. Best, Reading Beans 20:29, 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 redirect‎ to Stochastic process#Law. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law (stochastic processes)

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

The Wikipedia article for Stochastic process has a subsection (3.14.1) for this topic with several citations included, and this article has no additional information from what is stated in that section, and it lacks the citations too. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stochastic process#Law. This page has mostly been abandoned since its creation in 2006; there's no indication that the topic needs an article unto itself. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I agree with XOR'easter's comment Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too was leaning towards redirecting the page to the Stochastic process#Law section, which is why I chose to make AfD nomination instead of going the PROD way, but now I'm not sure it's required. Reasons:

I only saw this page because I re-enabled the newcomer dashboard which suggests articles that need editing, and the page had a banner about the lack of sources added in November 2009. So in almost 15 years the page didn't get any attention, no sources added or deletion nominations or talk page discussions.
I checked the page statistics using Xtools and Pageviews and the page has only had 31 revisions in total since it was created (including this one), and gets roughly 300 views a month on average.
On the other hand, the main page for stochastic processes has 1,173 revisions as of now and gets around 20000 views a month, and continues to be revised and updated regularly. I think it's quite possible that the few people who visited this page ended up here after reading the stochastic processes page and seeking more info. I have been a frequent visitor of the math articles here but I haven't been an editor for very long so what do you think XOR'easter, Gumshoe2, could the page be deleted without the redirect too? AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect But I also note that the two have quite different formulas. I suppose we can assume that the Stochastic process has had more consideration and is therefore the preferred content. Me, I don't speak that language. Lamona (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! The notations used are different, but the math is essentially the same. The form used in stochastic process is expanded and simplified (and more Wikipedia friendly), this page uses less commonly used vector notation for this concept.AradhanaChatterjee (talk) 16:00, 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!} 23:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isoelectric (electric potential)

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

Pure dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT perfectly applies here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, and/or Redirect. The topic is highly notable, even if the page is awful. I will post this to WT:PHYSICS as someone will either improve it or find the right home for a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is valuable information for applications in solid state physics as well as in medicine (cardiology and related topics). Starlighsky (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve it. If you don't I will probably change my vote to speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at worst redirect): the content here does not deserve an article of its own.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it were moved to isoelectric line, this would never grow beyond WP:DICTDEF. And the actual term used by people is equipotential line (sometimes isopotential line). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition of this term would require at most a line in an article, not an article unto itself. I concur with Headbomb: when physics people talk about points having the same electric potential, we say equipotential, not isoelectric. I suspect that an antiquated use in physics is being conflated with a use in medicine. Gathering together the different definitions of a word is a job for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete earlier I hoped that the original editor (or someone else) would edit it to something more reasonable, but that is clearly not going to happen. Hence I am changing my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)

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. Star Mississippi 13:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton House Preparatory School

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

Promotional article that does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: While I'm not finding any immediate sources (only did a Google search), this school is definitely around 50 years old (UK incorporation documentation). Given that this article was nominated for deletion the same day it was created, I favor draftification and looking into possible references. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Listings like this one from The Sunday Times are notable enough to count towards the RS coverage total of the GNG. Will keep looking, as I'm about 50/50 on whether this could work as an article. Might scrounge around some architecture books and see if anyone finds that element particularly notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can't read that source in its entirety as it is paywalled but "School league tables: the best UK primary and secondary schools revealed" as a title does not give me confidence that this is actually significant coverage of the school itself. Rankings usually aren't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It isn't SIGCOV, but multiple listings in notable rankings is another avenue towards notability described by NORG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Where does NORG say that? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Footnote 2, WP:ORGTRIV. Presumptive notability is a rare thing, but this might clear that through inclusion on such listings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That footnote says If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject. I don't think that is met here. Unless you can prove that this newspaper's ranking of primary schools is notable in itself? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  We're going a bit off-topic (which is fine for me; I'm not super concerned about this article but now I kinda on a kick seeing how UK schools are ranked). Looking into it, The Times's school rankings may themselves clear GNG. See [21], [22], [23]. Their rankings seem to be a standard. Again, off topic, but maybe something for me to consider looking into as a potential article sometime in the future. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The reason I created the article was due to the Schools inclusion in a number of articles by UK News Outlets about the continued success of the school, with it earning the title and reputation in the Liverpool region for "the best institution for primary education in Merseyside" https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/best-primary-schools-merseyside-ranked-22404373 this coupled with it being featured nationally in the times schools of the year rankings. The decision to create it an article also stems from the history the schools establishment is the continuation of Woolton Hall Preparatory School, part of the history of Woolton Hall. I would also like to state that it has only been a matter of hours since the articles creation, and I believe it would be more prudent to expand the third party sourcing of this school's article rather then deleting it. I would also like to advise that it does not fall under a for-profit school due to its establishment as a registered charity for providing a school upholding the catholic faith, UK Gov Charity registration number will be added to the article to greater clarify this. Knowledgework69 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is if you can provide three reliable and independent sources that have WP:SIGCOV about the school. Wikipedia has certain guidelines for inclusion, so school rankings by themselves aren't really what I'm looking for. An AfD lasts at least 7 days so there is no need to rush. But I did not find the sourcing I was hoping to find when I looked. Drafts cannot overcome notability concerns and aren't supposed to be a backdoor to deletion, so I figured it'd be worth raising the matter now. I'm not unreasonable as long as you can provide that sourcing, I'd withdraw. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, totally understand I am trying to look through articles now bare with. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more sources pertaining to history and charity and constitution added Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a further point to the schools notability https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/junior-sport/carleton-house-reach-finals-3509155 for sporting success it has competed successfully at the highest level of Junior School sports in England, which was reported on in news articles Knowledgework69 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I need to prove the school's notability. I need significant coverage. Can you find sources that meet what's described there? I haven't been able to yet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The School was featured in two books published in 2022 and 2023 respectively information pertaining to them can now be found on the article under the School section. Knowledgework69 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A children's book featuring the school's mascot is not SIGCOV about the school itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can overcome the notability hurdle, there's still the promotional issue. The entire lede consists of promotional items not discussed elsewhere in the article. A lede for a school article should include the town and political division where the school is located; the name of the lowest level administrative authority that controls it, and a brief summary of the high points of the rest of the article. Also, you should arrange the sections of the article as outlined at WP:WPSCH/AG. Further, there is a bunch of flowery language scattered throughout the article. A good rule of thumb is, you cannot say anything either good or bad about the school in Wikipedia's voice. You need to directly quote a reliable secondary source that is completely independent of the school. I'd lean towards draftifying the article to give the author time to work on all the issues. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I found four reliable sources in this article with significant coverage:

There are three additional sources on two books about the school's mascot and school motto, ‘They Can Because They Think They Can’:

However, the text in the History section needs to be re-worked, preferably using chronological order and a simplified narrative. It would be useful to differentiate between the history of the buildings the school has occupied from the various iterations of the school's title and organization. Primary schools seldom meet the referencing requirements of WP:GNG, but this one now does, thanks to WP:HEY effort of Knowledgework69. It's kind of like a diamond in the rough... it just needs some polishing now. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and I agree with your suggestion to differentiate between the history of Beechenhurst House and Woolton Hall, and of the School Knowledgework69 (talk) 23:37, 8 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!} 23:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Schieren

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

Appears to fail WP:NBASIC. There's this, a no-byline, likely promotional piece, and this, an interview with little secondary coverage. Couldn't find anything else. EmPower Solar looks notable, so perhaps an article on the company should be created and this article should be redirected to that. C F A 💬 18:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject does not seem notable and does not have enough news coverage. Available references are primary, interviews or profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find plenty of primary sources, and one possibly good source from the DOE, which is in the article; even though it is called a "blog" it might be considered reliable (it's hard to know what "blog" means at the DOE). This is a stub, although by an active editor, but there doesn't seem to have been an effort to move it beyond that - it's only got a handful of edits total. Lamona (talk) 00:18, 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 Jets Overhead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boredom and Joy

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

The article should be redirected to Jets Overhead. Nominating this because my bold redirect was reverted. There is a total lack of reliable sources talking about this album. The only source currently used on the article, Album of the Year, is a user-generated source that should not be used per WP:ALBUMAVOID as it is user-generated content. It previously had Discogs and AllMusic sources on it that I removed as the supporting text was falsely attributing any sort of critical reception to these sources. Discogs is also user-generated so cannot be used, and AllMusic did not even publish a review of the album. Ss112 18:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:NALBUM. cyberdog958^Talk 08:11, 9 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!} 23:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

État pied-noir

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

I don’t believe this fantasy nation is notable. Some people have signed some documents, put them on the internet and blogged about them. That’s about it. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Pieds-noirs, where it is mentioned. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Mccapra (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article several years ago. Since then the organisation has become defunct and is probably not even notable enough to warrant a mention at Pieds-noirs The article itself has become very messy. I would be fine with it being deleted. Xophe84 (talk) 16:27, 9 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. Consensus is that this is a content fork. Whether or not to create a redirect is up to interested editors. Sandstein 11:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Bosniaks in World War II

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

There already exists an article on this topic at Chetnik war crimes in World War II#Genocide of Muslims and Croats where the matter is extensively covered with quality sources (Bosniaks at this time were referred to as Muslims). On the other hand, this article has major issues. Much of the content is cherrypicked, unsourced and engaging in WP:SYNTH.

The table of massacres in the casualties and demographics section is unsourced; meanwhile the Chetnik war crimes article discusses the massacres in detailed prose form. It also wrongly implicates the Yugoslav Partisans, a multi-ethnic anti-fascist guerilla movement in genocide. The casualties listed by Žerjavić and Kočović are the totals of Muslims killed in the entirety of Yugoslavia by every faction and all causes, not only victims of genocide.

An alternative could also be to redirect the page to Chetnik war crimes in World War II#Genocide of Muslims and Croats as "Genocide of Bosniaks in World War II" is a plausible title. Griboski (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is specifically directed to the genocide of Bosniaks, who were targeted by not only the Chetniks but also accounts exist of crimes from the Partisans (such as in Prijedor) and the Bosniak Muslims who were sent into the Jasenovac concentration camp (although not listen within this page). Plus, I wonder by what criteria is the contect "cherrypicked", the page is still relatively new and hasn't been edited that much, I'm feeling a bit of bias here. :) Vedib (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While you do make a good point that the casualties section for the individual massacres needs sources, it is very clear that those are copied from the already existing article on the list of massacres in Yugoslavia in World War II. This can be fairly easily fixed by adding the necessary source tags. Also, how and where does the article imply that the Yugoslav Partisans engaged in genocide / massacres? The only given perpetrators are the Chetniks, and I don’t see anywhere else in the article them being listed, except for a few incidents in 1941 where they did indeed engage in massacres when they were still temporarily aligned with the Chetniks. Aliy Dawut (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it discusses the Partisans is a minor thing. The bigger issue is that it doesn't make sense to have two articles discussing the same topic. --Griboski (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you care to re-review the page, I removed several unsourced massacres and massacres that were NOT committed solely by the Chetniks. I do not believe a simple and flexible issue like this justifies deletion of an article that cites 21 RS Aliy Dawut (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Issues can primary be adressed on the talk page. See my comment on the other request for deletion. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prose is generally okay, but there is a lack of RS and 1/2 of the article is c/p from arnother article. Making a redirect is also a decent idea. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate on the “lack of RS”? Aliy Dawut (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" and "generally okay" doesn't fit together, somehow. As I said, these issues can be adressed at the talkpage.

WP:INTROTODELETE:

When not to use the deletion process: Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. (Even though the alleged issue that the article were in a bad shape is still debated) AlexBachmann (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you or Ali are addressing the main concern.

80-90% of the content in the Chetnik war crimes in World War II article is about the genocidal atrocities of the Chetniks against the Croats and Muslims (Bosniaks).

This article, which was recently created, deals with the genocide against Muslims, which is already covered extensively there. That's where an AfD discussion comes in, to see if an article should be deleted, or redirected, because it duplicates an already existing topic. --Griboski (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the stuff about Jews and Partisans can be moved from the Chetnik war crimes article so that it focuses solely on Croats and Muslims. If someone at some point split off and made an article focusing only on Croats, that would leave us with 3 articles discussing the same topics. And you would have to repeat much of the same background information and statistics and so on. But this doesn't make sense. As the primary victims of the Chetniks, bibliography tends to discuss Croats and Muslims together in this context. --Griboski (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were to indeed get deleted or merged, what would be your thoughts on including the upper estimate of 100,000 Bosniak deaths in the infobox of the Chetnik war crimes in World War II given that it already seems to be a fairly undisputed consensus that the Chetniks killed more Bosniaks/Muslims than they did Croats? I think that seems like a very fair and sensible compromise, no? Aliy Dawut (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible but seems high to me, maybe even WP:FRINGE, when you consider that both Kocovic and Zerjavic calculated about 100,000 total Bosniak deaths during the war of all causes. --Griboski (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don’t think that really can be considered fringe, a lower bound of 29,000-33,000 and an upper bound of 100,000 seems pretty reasonable and standard to me, and as I said I think that would be a good compromise to this dispute Aliy Dawut (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as part of my above suggestion for a compromise, I also think that per the sources, the Croat and Bosniak casualties from the Chetniks should be separately divided on that article, as the sources all tend to make a distinction in their figures Aliy Dawut (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious CFORK of Chetnik war crimes in World War II. Khirurg (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is already covered, with much more details, in a dedicated section of Chetnik war crimes in World War II. There is no need for a new article. Krisitor (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As other users have noted, this is a WP:CFORK of Chetnik war crimes in World War II. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chetnik war crimes in World War II or even to Chetnik war crimes in World War II#Genocide of Muslims and Croats. It would be good if someone could make sure that we don't lose any unique content from this article, although that will require some concerted editing. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with this, but as I noted in a couple other replies, I think that the infobox of the Chetnik war crimes article should cover Croat and Bosniak/Muslim casualties separately as per the given sources, and should specify the 29,000-100,000 Bosniak/Muslim victims (the latter being the maximum upper bound estimate) in the infobox Aliy Dawut (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be bold and try to do that, to achieve what you want to see in those lists. Sometimes the only way to know is to do it and see how it works out. Lamona (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see, if this article does indeed get deleted I will try and do just that, hopefully consensus and a compromise can be reached then… Aliy Dawut (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant content fork. A redirect to Chetnik war crimes in World War II § Genocide of Muslims and Croats can also be created; relevant content can always be incorporated into the latter one, provided there is consensus. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with this, but as I noted in a couple other replies, I think that the infobox of the Chetnik war crimes article should cover Croat and Bosniak/Muslim casualties separately as per the given sources, and should specify the 29,000-100,000 Bosniak/Muslim victims (the latter being the maximum upper bound estimate) in the infobox, with Croat casualties around 30,000-35,000, again, per the sources Aliy Dawut (talk) 19:51, 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 Four Seasons (Indonesian band)#Members. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Win Wu YanHong

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

Citing unreliable sources especially from YouTube is not a way of showing notability. I don't seem to see WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources, hence doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Entertainment, Indonesia, and Taiwan. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~ - Seems to only be known on YouTube which is not considered a reliable source. Those should be deleted. If better sourcing can be found, please bring it to the table. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Four Seasons (Indonesian band) makes sense as an alternative to deletion. Changing my iVote. Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Four Seasons (Indonesian band)#Members (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 9 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 08:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Children in the Nursery

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

Does~~n't~~meet WP:NFILM as there were no/less unreliable sources cited in the article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a film, over 125 years old, from Robert W. Paul, a notable director. The nomination has zero indication of whether WP:Before has even been attempted. A quick check does indicate there are sources highlighting this short film demonstrates, from an academic viewpoint, the state of filmmaking in the UK at that particular time. I have added these citations to the article. Consequently, especially considering the very age, and indeed novelty, of the subject, I consider this a keep as this 67 second movie does appear to be an encyclopedic historical subject. ResonantDis_tortion 23:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RD's two sources clinch NFILMS, and there's no earthly reason we would delete an article about an early film in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage in reliable sources exist, see GBooks please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination as Keep.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:53, 9 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kincaid

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs are routine PR style articles with no real WP:RS secondary coverage for this WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 03:37, 9 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!} 23:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Vukovich

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

WP:BLP1E. Per WP:CRIMINAL, "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article", unless "the motivation/execution of the crime... is a well-documented historic event". In this case, none of the reliable sources suggest any historic, social or otherwise serious significance to his 4-day robbery spree from 2016 [24].

This academic book co-authored by Vukovich in which he was "given a chance to tell" his own story alongside 7+ felons is not secondary, independent of the subject or primarily about him. At best, this case could become one sentence at Vigilantism in the United States#Other_episodes. Badbluebus (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Alaska. Badbluebus (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some serious BLP concerns here. Only a few sources in the article look reputable, others look unreliable or WP:SENSATIONAL such as WP:NYPOST, "Talk Murder True Crime Blog", WP:USERGENERATED true crime publisher "vocal media", pseudoscientific horoscope news website "yourtango", WP:FOXNEWS, fringe news website with a "paranormal" series "thoughtnova", fringe blog about "horror stories, conspiracy theories, Murder Mysteries, Alien Life" buggedspeace, citizen vigilante blog geordiechasers). The "hit list" section, that accuses three living people of sexual crimes, is greatly sourced by unreliable sources such as the aforementioned. Badbluebus (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With regard to WP:CRIMINAL, the key word here is separate article. We don't have an article on the crime so that doesn't apply, this is not a "separate article" of anything.

I'm not going to vote keep because all the later sources are either bad (all that's interesting, thoughtnova or those weird seo article type things) or just "police said this" or his sentencing announcement without further commentary which isn't great. Just want to correct that. The least bad source is the Anchorage Daily Times ones but overall the sourcing here is very low quality. Not going to vote delete (yet) either because I haven't done a before check for better sources outside the page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About that, the guideline says that "Where there are no appropriate existing articles [about the crime itself], the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies", citing the standards about historical significance or victim relevance. So I believe it applies to this page. Badbluebus (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the second criterion of the perpetrator section seems to read more along it being determined by "sustained coverage of the event" dedicating focus to the role of the person, or the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" (which this probably does qualify under if the coverage was better), as demonstrated by sigcov. The coverage here is not good but I still disagree with the way the nomination is phrased.

After having done a before check, I vote delete because there is not a lot useful here. I found a 1 paragraph mention in an academic study on the unintended affects of the sex offender registry. Theoretically this could be an interesting, brief note in an article about that but we don't have an applicable one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in the New York Post in the article already and in local Alaska media [25], I don't think it's enough coverage to build an article with. Would like to have seen better sources like ABC or CNN or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went through and removed most, if not all, of the fringe sources. I didn't touch the text. This makes it easier (to me) to see if there are enough good sources for the article. This leaves a lot of the content unsourced. I may cycle back to !vote. Lamona (talk) 01:43, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Time of Year (song)

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of the song in reliable sources, as required by WP:NSONG. The Promotion section is sourced to a self-published database of Runrig set lists and performance dates and other citations are to the charts. This article should be redirected to Runrig discography, where its chart performance is already documented. Posted with permission: Goodreg3 opposes for the reasons discussed on his talk page and this AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, United Kingdom, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:31, 7 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bores

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable YouTuber who doesn't meet WP:GNG. A7 may even apply. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages need to add more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of coverage, this is about the best [26] ,rest are lower quality sources. None used in the article are green in Source Highlighter. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 7 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dawes

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Purely lacks notability per WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did remove all of the really iffy links, and there's not much left to say. It's full of lists with no sources, and I admit I fear a COI since this has all be done by a single editor who is also a SPA. I also have a memory of this coming by recently, yet the first AfD seems to have been in 2009. This article was created in March of this year. It was declined at AfC three times, then the editor moved it from draft to main space. Lamona (talk) 02:28, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Găleșanu

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

There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some reviews/critical discussion in Romanian sources [27] and [28], might be more in Romanian sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two links is to the introduction of his book, so not exactly impartial. 161.132.213.116 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the creator has been locked for UPE; this article therefore might need significant cleanup. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:17, 7 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. A case has been made that more sources sufficient to meet BLP requirements can be found with more time. Star Mississippi 13:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi

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

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

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

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

Comment: I found this which is fairly in-depth. There's also this, this, and some other routine coverage. Likely not enough to meet WP:NBASIC but I would not be surprised if there was more coverage out there. I just don't know where to look or how to read Japanese. C F A 💬 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the runner-up in the 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Mizuki Otake have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. DCsansei (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being a BLP, the threshold for retention is higher. More source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. NBAD is irrelevant when NSPORT itself is not met. The Hochi link does seem to cover her playing beyond the one tournament, but it is not enough to overcome the stricter SIGCOV requirements in place for high school-age athletes (which she was at the time). Draftifying might give people a bit more time to find more recent sources. The other two links identified above are pretty routine tournament recaps. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having the WP:SNG guideline if they are not given some level of deference? I agree that writing this article was likely premature but the fact remains that as of September 1, 2024, she has now passes a subject-specific notability guideline. In the spirit of ignore all rules, I don't see the point of deleting an article now when the guideline states that she now meets a level where significant coverage is likely to exist (or will very soon exist). Wikipedia is not served by deleting articles for individuals for whom "appropriate sourcing likely exists" just to recreate them.

If you disagree with WP:NBAD, then think it would be better to get a consensus to change the guideline itself instead of arguing for selective circumvention. DCsansei (talk) 11:39, 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 WiSolar. Star Mississippi 13:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonye Irims

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Weak Keep: Found some of his profile here [29] and another with Business Insider outlet [30] @Vanderwaalforces:Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055 Thanks for the ping. I saw these, they do not count towards GNG, they fail WP:INDEPENDENT as they are clearly interviews with the subject of this article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VanderwaalforcesYea, they fail GNG. They are just profiles and they are not independent. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having edited the Wisolar article on English Wikipedia, I got to know that the deletion of this article is currently being discussed. On WP:GNG, this 1 and 2 should suffice for the keeping of the article. Thank you. Bukky658 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bukky658 The first source you mentioned fails to provide WP:SIGCOV directly on the subject, while the second source fails WP:INDEPENDENCE, which is the major issue with all the sources I have found. They just do not count towards GNG based on this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WiSolar: The subject is not independently notable on its own per a WPBEFORE I’ve made. Redirecting is the best WP:ATD here. Best, Reading Beans 07:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:08, 7 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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar D'Mello

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I searched for sources but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:GNG per WP:NACTOR: has acted in notable films. Also has coverage in multiple local newspapers (oHeraldo, The Navhind Times). Also meets WP:ANYBIO as mentioned in a couple of books (Konkani Kell Tiatr and 100 Years of Konkani Tiatro) and won the Tiatr Academy of Goa's "Lifetime Contribution to Tiatr Award" (2017). Tiatr is a local form of theatre that is important to Goa. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per SerChevalerie JadeMaveric (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR, Fails WP:NFILMMAKER, Fails WP:NSINGER, Fails WP:NATH. There is no significant coverage in any field and career and the sources are poor to unreliable with passing mention and self claimed interview. Fails notability. The subject's achievements are not substantial and notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. The subject has received the Lifetime achievement award for their contribution to tiatr, a local form of theatre. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not widely recognized contribution but just a local form of theatre contribution. RangersRus (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Meets WP:ANYBIO because he has received a well-known and significant award (Tiatr Academy of Goa's Lifetime Contribution to Tiatr Award).
Meets WP:NACTOR because he has made prolific contributions to a field of entertainment (tiatr).
Online references are not as common for topics about the Indian hinterland as compared to topics about the Western world.

The Discoverer (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: per SerChevalerie Fredericknoronha (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. I now withdraw my nomination. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:11, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Link20XX (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Blue

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

~~Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV about this manga. Natalie provides only the given source and all are WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment: There is one article I managed to find when searching it on Natalie, and it was about this series collaborating with an MMA company in Japan called GRACHAN. ^[1]~~

~~SimonLagann (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep: I found articles online, not just from Natalie, but from an MMA website called Boutreview. I think that should add to its notability. SimonLagann (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw thank you @SimonLagann: for the sources provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miminity (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://natalie.mu/comic/news/532973

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters World Series of Indoor Cricket

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

Another non notable cricket tournament. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 13:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find sources anywhere on the internet. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:06, 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dedy Jaya Siregar

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

Despite his 6 league appearances, I can't find any significant coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources that I could find were Bola and Liputan6, both being passing mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverages added till now also I can see in Indonesian Wiki page there are no sources added in this article. Xegma(talk) 17:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Xegma is correct that corresponding article on Indonesian Wikipedia also doesn't have significant coverage. I might also nominate the article for deletion there. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 9 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kande Lansana

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

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. My own searches, including Indonesian news sites, only yielded Bola, Detik and Tribun News, none of which even come close to showing significant coverage of Lansana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing here to suggest this subject meets the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:05, 9 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 Oxfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Edmondson

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Could not find any third party sources. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is really necessary, an article exists at List of Oxfordshire County Cricket Club List A players for an obvious redirect. But 90 percent of non-first class List A players will make their way to those articles eventually, so... *shrug* I'd be surprised if nothing exists in sources given that he appears to have died abroad and relatively young. Bobo . 16:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does seem to have had a prominent role with the education authority in Calderdale in Yorkshire. He drowned in the bath on the second day of his stay at his holiday home in Lanzarote, having taken sleeping tablets given to him by his wife. AA (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @LibStar:. These AfD's are a little pointless. Just be WP:BOLD and redirect to the above mentioned list, retaining Category:English cricketers and Category:Oxfordshire cricketers. AA (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources that could be suitable for this article, only promotional content and profiles. Alon9393 (talk) 17:00, 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 10:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Rakyta

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

Rakyta played eight matches at top tier before being sent on loan to Tatran Prešov. Secondary sources from my searches did not show any significant coverage of him. Considering that almost no Slovak clubs are well-known outside their homeland, I don't see this as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable Is la🏳️‍⚧ 21:08, 11 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 10:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bolgar

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

Poorly sourced stub, fails GNG. Wire723 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wire723 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article, though I am pretty certain I was not logged in at the time, and I completely agree that it should be deleted. Wikipedia's rules on notability have obviously tightened up a *lot* in the last two decades, and the site does not need anorak trivia with no notability beyond that small and self-perpetuating niche - it fills me with embarrassment, the stuff I thought was acceptable here two decades ago. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 10 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. The sole argument for retention has been refuted. Star Mississippi 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fleeting Ends

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

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

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

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

Not Sure': I updated existing references and added some additional ones. It looks like the band was active 2008-2015 and then again in 2018 with Vantine and others. For the reformed band in 2018, the references I found list different people than the article originally named (I changed the article to reflect what's in the sources). The originally named people are in pictures that are part of the article but I can't find any sources that link them directly to "The Fleeting Ends". There is coverage of this band in the local Philly outlets that cover indie bands, it's more limited outside - I see some newspaper articles that announced tour dates and the Popmatters magazine article about a release in 2018. I'd rather someone with more knowledge about WP:BAND weigh in. Nnev66 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources here. In fact, NBC increases the notoriety of the article. Alon9393 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait--this? That's nothing but a video, with the video gone, from a local affiliate. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies We are in a generation of rapid consumption, of TikTok, YouTube, the video is what is produced, I don't see why it can't be there, and the quotes are from the American national network NBC. Alon9393 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The video is NOT there, and even if it were, it wouldn't mean a thing. "They appeared on TV" is not a claim to notability, certainly not if it's a local affiliate: no, it's not NBC, it's the Philadelphia affiliate, Channel 10--WCAU. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 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 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!} 07:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josue España

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All nine sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 7 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!} 07:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Newingtonians awarded Imperial and Australian honours

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

Fails WP:NLIST with a single, non-independent "source". Newington College is a "day and boarding school for boys", not even a college.

I am also nominating the following related page because it too is supported by a single source, in this case, the Australian Dictionary of Biography:

Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there any such lists for other secondary schools? If not I see no reason for this to exist. SecretSpectre (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The dictionary of national biography list is a effectively original research. Both articles fail WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty straightforward. No independent reliable sources for the group as a whole, therefore fails WP:NLIST. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Comment: To describe the Australian Dictionary of Biography as “effectively original research” suggests a total misunderstanding of Australian History and makes a mockery of Wikipedia editors and their understanding of what they are doing. All entries are referenced by the their award from the government or Governor of the time. Wikipedia will be the looser if this record is removed but so be it. SproulesLane (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the ADB is reliable (it most definitely is), but rather whether a specific subset of alumni in it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t question if the ADB was reliable, somebody else did that, but the ADB reliably says that certain entries attended a particular school so the list is not only reliable but relevant. Delete away as is your wish! SproulesLane (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to your reasoning, List of Old Newingtonians with Australian Dictionary of Biography biographies born in January would also be legit? Equally reliable, yes. Equally significant, also yes. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you examine Category:Lists of Australian people by school affiliation, you will find no other lists like these for any other school. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Both appear to be based off original research, would not be discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources as categories and therefore fail WP:NLIST TarnishedPath^talk 09:10, 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 and improve.‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural institutions in Australia

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

Weird article. Reads as original essay into a topic. The article content does not match the title, it focuses on random facts on old educational institutions rather than what you would expect from a page entitled 'cultural institutions in Australia'. The page was also created in 2006, with no notable contributions since SJD Willoughby (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article can be written about the impact of the First Fleet, etc on the creation of Australia's cultural landscape, which this source has, but it would be easier to start over. I also don't think that's a representative sample of early Australian cultural organizations and certainly not a description for two hundred years later either. Star Mississippi 17:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve --Matilda ^talk 01:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you created this article 18 years ago, I would argue that this article will not see any improvements. I would actually argue that this article cannot be improved as the current scope does not match the title. As the previous comment states, it would be better to delete the article and allow future editors to restart either an article about the current contents under a more relevant name or a more relevant article under the current name SJD Willoughby (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and improve. It covers a legitimate topic. If anybody had wanted to write a summary article on high culture in Australia during the last 20 years, they could easily have written it.--Grahame (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title is good but needs improvements for sure, plus a very old article.NatalieTT (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is about a very valid institution of Mechanics institutes and the like - needs a carefully thought out name change, and the potential for improvement is considerable. JarrahTree 09:57, 9 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!} 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeosophos

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

Google News reveals no result about this articles, the article uses only primary sources. Clearly fails WP:NSINGER Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any reliable sources. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:28, 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 List of dams and reservoirs in Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beşkarış Dam

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

There are several uncited articles about dams - is there any specific guidance on how to tell whether a dam is notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, List of dams and reservoirs in Turkey (whichi includes this one) all seem to be created by User:Starzynka who has been blocked as a prolific sock creator, abusing multiple accounts. I don't know of any guide that mentions how to deal with this, but I would have no problem if there were some way to delete all of the damns on this user's list. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 24 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!} 19:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for a Redirect here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This article isn’t unsourced as there is an external link to the relevant state agency, but that’s not a secondary source. There are sources that could make this pass but the broader question is whether we need a stub on every individual small local reservoir in Turkey. My view in that is “no”, so redirecting to the list seems sensible, Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good idea Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of dams, unless sources come to light for this particular dam. Ingratis (talk) 15:16, 7 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 14:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Tanioka

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 7 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!} 04:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ewington, Indiana

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

For some reason in Decatur County I'm getting a lot of rail spots. It's plain from the maps, and I can find nothing which contradicts this. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Harding's history of Decatur County [31] clearly states this was just a post office, not a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:54, 7 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!} 00:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan, Daviess County, Indiana

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a station, not a settlement, as per the source cited by nom. Stations and other railroad infrastructure are subject to WP:GNG, and a brief mention in a century-old history doesn't count as significant coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:57, 7 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 03:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yogacharya Govindan Nair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment to the objection that “there are sources” my response as nominator is that I don’t doubt that the subject is the author of multiple books. What there is not is anything that demonstrates notability. We don’t allow bio articles sourced almost entirely to online shopping sites with dead links. In addition not a single detail of the subject’s life is even verifiable based on the refs in the article or anything else I can find in English. I don’t think it’s acceptable to retain an entirely unverified bio on the strength of a claim that “there are sources.” Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article here from the Times Group, https://malayalam.samayam.com/feature/special-stories/who-was-yogacharya-govindan-nair/articleshow/101135876.cms, seems like a credible source describing the subject as the populizer of yoga in Kerala. Given the Indian context, it is not necessary that a historical subject, especially in Kerala, should be widely cited in the English media to be notable. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, sources don’t have to be in English. They can be in any language but if they exist this discussion is the place to share them. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 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!} 04:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the Malayalam samayam source mentioned by Pinknetwork123 is WP:CIRCULAR. The feature story reads exactly like it was generated from this Wikipedia article, with no new information. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not able to find any coverage in reliable sources or reviews of his books. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:07, 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!} 05:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suborno Isaac Bari

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

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

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

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

Delete I tend to agree with the advice in the essay linked in the nomination. If we're going to write about kids, we need to be careful. Relevant to the present case are the admonishments, Students are not notable prodigies for their performance as students, no matter how advanced they are in their work, and Prodigious children who demonstrate skill in mathematics or science are expected to have published works on a par with their notable adult academic peers. Another pertinent concern is the general idea of not having a whole article about a person only known for one thing. Only one event has been covered with any degree of reliability, namely his admission into NYU, and that's being very generous to the silly season reporting. On the whole, I'm just not seeing a notability case that is strong enough to outweigh the concerns here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with XOR'easter's comment Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:04, 8 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. To the nominator, I'm just curious, how do you determine whether or not an article has "relevance"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreína Álvarez

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

She still needs much more experience as a recognized and outstanding actress, page without relevance required Alon9393 (talk) 03:22, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, Entertainment, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the WP:ENT. Xegma(talk) 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 7 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 03:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safavid–Aq Qoyunlu Wars

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

ChatGPT creation (see [32]). It's already been moved to draft once. I tried to get the go-ahead from the author to draftify it a second time, but no luck. asilvering (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. asilvering (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nope. It takes a lot of work to create an encyclopedic article of this type and plainly none of that has been done. There’s nothing here we need to keep. Start again using actual sources or don’t bother. Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While conflicts between the Aq Qoyunlu and Safavids likely happened as part of the power struggle in Iran, this vague boilerplate AI-generated article tells us absolutely nothing of substance, and WP:TNT would be the best option. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AI-Generated Content. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 11 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. Star Mississippi 13:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC) I was asked to review my close by Habst and have done so. While I still see this as N/C, I'm going to expand on my close that it's more helpful for the future. We have a situation here where sourcing (non-English, offline) exists. While there is no need for sourcing to be in English, and its existence or a lack thereof has no bearing on notability for en wiki, it does make source assessment more challenging. We have Ljleppan uncertain about whether its sufficient, Alvaldi making a case that proximity of sourcing is non issue and a broader disagreement as to the independence of interviews. The latter is an issue that really needs meta discussion as it regularly comes up at AfDs and I don't think is resolved. Having re-read this twice in Habst's request, I still find myself in the same place. I would suggest that before anyone considers bringing this back to AfD that they spend the effort researching and accessing (ref exchange board, Finnish & Swedish speaking editors) sourcing to see if the state of the article can be improved. Star Mississippi 21:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Ojala

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

Nominated for the following reason: Fails WP:GNG. The article currently contains no reliable, secondary sources. The first 2 articles are sports aggregate result websites that alone do not establish notability. The third article is a bio on a team website that no longer links to the athletes page. An independent google search as required for AfD returned no significant non-trivial coverage of the athlete. Wibbit23 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't look notable from the article. If you consult Special/Whatlinkshere you will find a 14th place at the 2017 World Championships and a 13th place at the 2022 World Championships. The 13th best in the entire world... looks much more notable now. And look, there is lots of significant coverage about his upbringing, personal life etc. [33] [34], various competitions [35] [36]+[37] and finally an article from this July about him retiring. [38]. These are from the two first pages of Google hits when I searched within Svenska YLE (since I know Swedish) and for his name in conjunction with his home town (since articles that write about someone's place of origin tend to showcase more knowledge about the person). A pretty clear keep Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Low-level competitor with almost zero coverage. [39] is a brief mention, then nothing else comes up. This isn't a famous athlete, just an athlete in a group of many others. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask that you reply to myself and another editor who found lots of pages to take into consideration. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent, reliable sources found that show significant coverage as proof of notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least some Finnish-language coverage exists, with e.g. these two pieces by by Yle Uutiset discussing his troubles in the 2023 Budapest world championships at length: [40], [41]. The same event was covered by e.g. Ilta-Sanomat [42]. That said, I'd view these as essentially one piece of newswork for notability purposes. Other than that, it's mostly your bog-standard sports coverage [43], or tiny local newspapers [44]. There is a piece by Aamulehti [45], but it's paywalled and I can't say whether it's just the standard "we interviewed an athlete" fare that contributes little-to-nothing towards notability, or something more extensive. Iltalehti has a short piece about him retiring [46], but it's quite a short piece with lots of quotes. All told, not the worst coverage I've seen, but neither is it anything that would make this a slam dunk in my eyes. I'd feel much more comfortable coming down on the keep side of the fence if there was at least one more solid non-interview piece in relation to something else than the Budapest events. Based on my (very brief) search, I'm rather ambivalent. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just emphasize here, as both Habst and Alvaldi have referenced these news pieces in their !votes: I think the Finnish-language coverage is weak. The strongest pieces of content (Budapest troubles) are less about the subject and more about the events in which he got involved in: they say fairly little about Ojala himself, and thus do little to establish the notability of Ojala. Similarly, most of the other stories are either wholly or in large part interviews, i.e. the subject talking about themself. To my understanding, these have been traditionally held to have little-to-no value for establishing notability. Yes, there is coverage relating to the subject, but there is little independent coverage about the subject in specific. There is no encyclopedic value in a quote of the subject saying they had a tough competition at some event or another, and they plan to train hard in the future. Ljleppan (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan, I greatly respect your contributions to this discussion and have thought about what you said. I do disagree with your assessment about the Finnish sources. For example, in [47] it's mentioned in the free preview that his "life will change" (translated) due to his retirement. Surely life-changing events are worth covering if a news organization deems it fit to write an article about it? In addition, the subject is specifically the sole topic of coverage. Re: interviews, I don't agree with that assessment. I've spoken with other experienced editors about interviews and they can actually have substantial value in establishing notability. For an interesting admin comment about interviews, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pietro Farina (athlete). I also wouldn't anticipate the type of quotes mentioned to be in the retirement article, because it's about his retirement so he wouldn't have to train for anything in the future. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst: the significant problem with Urjalan Sanomat in specific is that it's a hyperlocal newspaper, serving a municipality of approximately 4.5k people. Having a piece (notably, of unknown length and depth as it's paywalled) about someone in it is hardly indicative of any kind of meaningful notability. Ljleppan (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I might as well mark myself down as a weak delete for now, absent further sourcing that provides intellectually independent and significant coverage about the article subject in specific. Ljleppan (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljleppan, thanks for the response. I think that point is valid when the story is only circulated in physical print, but the Urjalan Sanomat is an online article so the potential audience is much wider. Also, just because we don't have access to a source doesn't mean it can't be used to assert notability; per WP:NEXISTS, simply knowing that sources must exist is enough to assert the notability of a subject and keep an article. --Habst (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This misrepresents the point of WP:NEXISTS: it points out that the notability-establishing sources do not necessarily need to be located in the article. But simply pointing at a paywalled article you have no access to (as far as I can see) is not sufficient: someone needs to be able to actually access the source and provide an assessment of whether it is the type of content we generally view as notability-indicative. Otherwise it is merely an unsupported assertion. Ljleppan (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan, I don't think that interpretation of WP:NEXISTS is backed up by the text or idea of the policy. Yes, sources don't need to be in the article – but that's simply not the only application of NEXISTS. Per Wikipedia policty the mere possibility of sources existing – a bar which I think has both been passed and not sufficiently rebutted in this case – must be considered by editors in deletion discussions. So of course, if paywalled articles can be found that are clearly solely about the subject, they should be considered regardless of whether we have access right now on the basis that a future editor could use it. I've seen articles about award winners kept in the past based on the fact that typically winners of their award have plaques written about them as part of the award, and that plaque could count as SIGCOV despite us not actually having a picture or the text of the plaque.

With great respect, I would be eager to strike any unsupported assertions I've made because I think it's important to discuss based on facts. I don't think it's appropriate to imply that another editor would do that without pointing to a specific statement that is both asserted and unsupported. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is no policy that disqualifies local coverage from counting towards notability. Proposals to reject local sources from showing a subjects notability was last rejected in 2018. Alvaldi (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was very surprised by the depth of coverage found above thanks to hard work of Geschichte and Ljleppan. I think any argument to delete needs to directly rebut the 13 sources found in this discussion. For example, the recent retirement article I would say is significant, independent, and reliable to challenge @Prof.PMarini in particular. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you have to admit that the sources Ljleppan listed would not appear in a customary WP:BEFORE search. He/she himself said that despite the sources found it "would not make a slam dunk" and he/she is "ambivalent." Plus, the sources still do not quite meet WP:SIGCOV about the subject of the article, Athletics World is focused on the doctor and just mentions Ojala; yle.fi was cited three times, but they are a mix of interviews, so may count as primary source, not useful as proof of notability. So my comment is still a Weak Delete at best. And anyway, I am just participating in a discussion and would not in any way take it personally if the consensus happens to not be the same as what my interpretation of the matter is. Additional edit: Plus, I only read English Wikipedia. If Geschichte had to search in Swedish to find sources, perhaps it is better wriiten in the Swedish Wikipedia and later translated. If readers and editors need to expend so much effort to prove a subject's notability, maybe the subject is not notable enough. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comment above expanding my view on the Finnish language sources (they are rather weak, in my view), but I'll just note here that there is no requirement for sources to be in English. See WP:GNG, stating "Sources may encompass published works in (...) in any language." and "Sources do not have to be (...) written in English.", as well as WP:NONENG. Ljleppan (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prof.PMarini, thanks for engaging, I think this type of discussion is what makes Wikipedia better. First of all, you have to admit that the sources Ljleppan listed would not appear in a customary WP:BEFORE search. -- I don't agree with this assessment, in Ljleppan's own words their search was "very brief". A WP:BEFORE should be able to catch any sources found in a very brief search. I think that the sources do meet the bar for SIGCOV -- I have looked extensively into Wikipedia policy on interviews in the past, and I've concluded that according to policy, they actually do not count as primary sources if they are published by news organizations because the news organizations have editorial processes and are staking their reputations on the veracity of the claims. There is no Wikipedia policy that says that interviews cannot contribute to establishing notability. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "[interviews] actually do not count as primary sources if they are published by news organizations because the news organizations have editorial processes and are staking their reputations on the veracity of the claims," this is blatantly incorrect. News organizations printing "X said that Y" does not indicate the news organization is vouching for the claims Y, but that X indeed claimed Y. Ljleppan (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan, that may or may not always play out in the off-wiki world, but according to Wikipedia policy that statement is certainly correct. I'm not referring to when cases where a newspaper gets a quote from someone – that's not an interview article but merely reporting that someone said something. An interview article is something more like that in the Pietro Farina case, where the article is written as a transcript as if the interviewee had written the article, without contextual framing around every quote.

Per Geschichte's comment, there are many non-interview articles in this case anyways, so the point is kind of moot. --Habst (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are almost always primary sources w/r/t to the content directly attributed to the person being interviewed, as is the plain reading of "accounts (..) by people who are directly involved" and as is explained in the footnote stating "Further examples of primary sources include: (..) interviews", both from WP:PRIMARY. Interview articles can also include non-primary content by the journalist who authored the article (this is normal, almost all non-tertiary content is primary-in-part), but not all content in it is categorically primary. Ljleppan (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree, then, except for Interviews are almost always primary sources. It simply depends on context and framing, and I've not seen any evidence that the sources presented in this AfD are "solely primary" interviews. --Habst (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marini - I searched in Swedish because Swedish is an official language of Ojala's country of origin. The YLE articles are not interviews though they contain quotes among other things. The comments about "expending effort" seem subjective and have little to do with policy as I see it. Geschichte (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned sources. Alvaldi (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Habst (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are comments to this discussion that have been made within the past hour. I'd also like to echo the request that editors arguing to Delete engage with the sources brough up in this discussion. Some editors have done this (thank you!) but all editors saying the sourcing is inadequate should review sources that have been found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the person meets ANY Bio. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Echoing Liz's last relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. No, interviews do not contribute to notability unless they contain significant secondary, independent background commentary by the author. The mere fact that someone was interviewed does not in any way constitute IRS SIGCOV, and obviously nothing the subject says about themselves, including content like "he said X" or "he claims X" stated outside of direct quotes, is independent or secondary. The Yle interview has material that looks facially independent, but it is intercalated with quotes and simply recaps what he said rather than providing analysis. That is not background, that is interview content. The Aamulehti piece seems to be a routine local-interest story, though we can't actually see what it contains so we cannot claim it is SIGCOV. Ditto for Urjalan Sanomat. The story (and the two links count as only one story) about him collapsing is a routine, primary news report. Essentially all we have is the Yle interview, and that just isn't independent enough to meet SPORTSCRIT #5. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, ythanks, I think that the admin closing statement of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pietro Farina (athlete) demonstrates that interviews can be used to demonstrate notability unless there's some new consensus I'm not aware of. I think a better way to think about it is to not use the word "interview" as a reason for discounting sources in this discussion because Wikipedia consensus demonstrates that whether or not a source is an interview simply has no bearing on its usefulness or applicability to AfDs.

As a compromise, would you consider postponing under the WP:NEXISTS policy until we can get access to the Aamulehti and Urjalan Sanomat sources that we know exist? I do think that the Aamulehti piece is more than just local interest; it has the second-largest circulation in all of Finland, and it's one of the most visited websites in the country. Is there any other country where we would consider a piece by the second-largest publication "local"? --Habst (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. When we already have some decent coverage for a two-time Olympian, and we know there's multiple further pieces of coverage that have a good shot a being SIGCOV, IMO we should be able to keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 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 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Master Inventor

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of seeing more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I can find several interviews with master inventors, and material from IBM, but the closest I could find to significant independent coverage is this article [48], which gives some background but is mostly about a single master inventor. But without at least one more source I don't think we have anything for an article. Plus, the level of detail currently in the article suggests it was written by an IBM insider and/or based on IBM (i.e. non-independent) sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator hasn't bothered to provide a rational why this article should be deleted. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds a bit WP:PROMO, cites no sources, and does not seem notable.SecretSpectre (talk) 00:05, 8 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 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Epirote Insurgency In South Albania

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

Duplicate/WP:POV FORK of Northern Epirus Liberation Front, as well as WP:OR. None of the references have page numbers either and it doesn't seem like any of them actually verify the text in the article. Griboski (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Albania, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't official history. It's probably just their opinion. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that?You?And what are you a historian to tell us what is true and what is not? North Epirote Insurgency In South Albania is a real historical event you can ask historians and tell you it is true but only your (Personal attack removed) will disagree, because you guys only want to be the best, but you are nowhere near that.I even provided sources but you still disagree Henrikurti (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Khirurg (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me why you don't like the truth? Henrikurti (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. All of the sources in the article lack page numbers, and are essentially impossible to verify. The nominator tagged them with {{page needed}} ten days ago (diff), and still, the issue remains. What's bizarre, is that less than one-and-a-half hours after the creation of the article by User:Henrikurti (initial revision), who added a bunch of – apparently – random URLs at the end of the page in response to their identically-titled draft getting rejected one day earlier due to lack of sources and sufficient context (diff), User:Randomuser2412 appeared, and arbitrarily moved these general references within the body of the article as inline citations (diff). Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where exactly does the article detail its purported topic? I see only context and what the Albanians, Italy, and Greece did, but no details on the actual insurgency... And that is leaving aside what exactly constitutes an 'insurgency' in the conditions of WWII-era Albania, which was occupied by foreign powers (Italians and Germans), with several different resistance groups competing for control, and where no clearly recognized Albanian government existed (if it was the Axis puppet governments, then any action against them falls under resistance). So far all I can see is a polemically-titled article with nothing to back it up. Constantine ✍ 17:51, 9 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. ✗plicit 04:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 7 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 00:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McDonald (academic)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Religion, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can find evidence of cites or reviews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
His publication is released in December, and so these are forthcoming JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, creation of page was due to unusual and niche academic field of minority religions in prison, which is the topic of his first publication due for release in 2024. His terminal degree was completed at Birkbeck Dept. Of Psychosocial Studies but I can’t find a citation for this so I didn’t include. On the ‘non major roles point’ - understood, but he held the role ‘Head of Policy’ for HMPPS in 2023 which feels notable? Apols if I’ve made it sound like an advert JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for making this page. If I can make the case a bit more: is a nascent academic but in a niche and unusual field of writing about Norse paganism in prison which distinguishes his contribution and his first publication is a book chapter with Bloomsbury coming out in December.

He sits on various policy and governance boards for national organisations including charities (Traveller movement) and the Magistrate’s association. I know he sits on several more including the Uni of Sheffield but can’t cite this.

I don’t want it to read like an advert, just an encyclopaedia entry for a niche academic who works at the intersections of religion and penology. JapaneseWoodblocks (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find anything to contribute to notability. ResonantDis_tortion 23:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No sign whatsoever of NPROF notability. NAUTHOR would generally require multiple works with multiple reviews (a single work reviewed work would be better handled with an article about that work). A single work is unlikely to cut it, even if reviews could be found. Little sign of GNG notability (see WP:INTERVIEWS concerning the interview with the Magistrates Association), although the relatively common name may make searching tricky. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:27, 9 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.

[1] ttps://natalie.mu/comic/news/532973

[1]