Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 23	July 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Global Credit Data

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

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Saipan International (badminton)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENT. The winners are already covered in base article Saipan International (badminton).zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, Oceania, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald S. Mangum

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

The main notability claim here that I see is signing the open letter about Biden's health but his role isn't that large in that event WP:ONEEVENT

Everything else is fairly run-of-the-mill

Then of course there is the admitted CoI editing and page creation. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drunvalo Melchizedek

AfDs for this article:

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

It's regrettable that this page has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It relies exclusively on primary sources and blog posts. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There are no serious reviews of his self published books. Consensus was deletion after a previous nomination in 2012. Not much has changed. He might be well known in New Age pseudoscience circles but there is nothing of substance for a Wikipedia page. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, and North America. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD is inaccurate as this is not the same page from 2012. It was recreated from scratch with available info in 2019. Also, the AFD does not actually give any specific grounds for deletion except what sounds like personal disdain, which WP needs to be above. In fact, the deletion submission itself admits topical notability. Whether said topical area is bad or good is not relevant to encyclopedic inclusion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 12:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination would be WP:AUTHOR, in that, at least in his field (however dubious), he is considered a significant figure. This is rather bolstered, I would say, by the number of the independent secondary sources already cited. Additionally, that his work has been the inspiration for notable artists as diverse as Tool and Willow Smith lends some amount of significant influence. But again, even your nomination concedes that "he might be well known in New Age... circles" which would seem to render the question moot; even you're not entirely certain of his non-notability, which I still think shoots significant holes through any WP:NN argument.

As for WP:RS, I would point to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources:
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS - I don’t see a single reliable source, unless you consider Jezebel to be reliable. This is in no was close to passing notability. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquebogue Windmill

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

Non-notable replica structure written in non-encyclopedic promotional tone. Fails the test of multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources. (The Bob Liepa article is the same article published in three different places, the Dempsey article does not mention this windmill at all, and the KDHamptons article is ineligible as tabloid coverage.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage I find is strictly local, from the Suffolk Times about damage to the windmill. There seems to be no coverage outside of hyperlocal items, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) with Pantigo Windmill, of which this is a replica. Djflem (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would accept a selective merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed the non-encyclopedic promotional tone. However, there is currently only one reliable source; plus the KDHamptons article. The latter is shurely tabloid, but here it's only used to proof that the mill can be rented, so tabloid coverage is sufficient. --Cyfal (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SBST: "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." That means there is insufficient evidence that this windmill passes the WP:GNG. No one's doubting the mill can be rented; we're doubting whether it meets the notability standards of this encyclopedia. I think the "merge" proposal is a good one, finding a home for the encyclopedic content in this article since it doesn't otherwise have standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Aquebogue Windmill is historically important and its meeting Wikipedia's rules for notability, so i guess keep will be the correct approach to this article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small amount of content to Pantigo Windmill as per Djflem, and lose the rest. Not notable in its own right - purely local interest. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last vehicle board

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, Sri Lanka, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a few sites describing why the last car in Indian trains has an X symbol: [1], [2], [3], but that doesn't make it a notable concept, since these are just quirky did-you-know sort of items. Analogy: I can find articles explaining why pencils are often painted yellow: [4], but that doesn't make Color of pencils a notable concept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with End-of-train device (as I suggested when deprodding), which is another technology with the same purpose (and likely there are others from different railways around the world). This isn't notable on it's own, but the broader concept is and the target article itself is possibly too narrow on it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information is not with citations but it seem to be true and that can be merged. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into End-of-train device sounds reasonable - that article already describes two approaches. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HarmonyOS kernel

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT -- the HarmonyOS Kernel has not received WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Available coverage does not support standalone notability as WP:USERGENERATED (blogs, Hackernoon, Github, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, WP:TRADES, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in coverage of HarmonyOS NEXT. I attempted to redirect to HarmonyOS NEXT, but that was reverted; bringing it here with a recommendation to merge but open to other outcomes as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think HarmonyOS Kernel deserves its own page as it's really important in Huawei's HarmonyOS next. XeVierTech (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge, presumably to HarmonyOS NEXT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 GT World Challenge Australia

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Or possibly redirect to Australian GT Championship as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you got rid of this one page youd have to get rid of all of these pages too Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons Multiple of those articles lack in real infomation and are full of TBCs. MotoGP and WRC dont even have the race calendar on them, but rather contracted races. There is sources about what tracks are holding what. And the dates. AidenT06 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AidenT06 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep: This championship is a GT championshio just like the British GT Championship and Intercontinental GT Challenge, in which this championship has also valid pages for the 2025 seasons right now. And the race calendar was already published for the next year. So, this page should be kept. And I really agree @AidenT06 for his opinion. There are two important categories already including the next seasons of motorsport championships, Category:2025 in motorsport and Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons. So, if you got rid of this page, why did not you get rid of the pages of all 2025 seasons, also for F1, WEC, and so on? Apeiro94 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Quick search for sources show that we're still in the early announcements stage of planning for the season. Deletion is unwarranted but could do with further development in draft space before being moved to main later this year when there will presumably be some more meaty content to discuss. Neither keep vote makes any substantial argument, both rely on WP:OTHERSTUFF appeals. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as a reasonable WP:ATD. The previous iterations of the championship seem notable, so there's no indication why this one cannot be when the time comes. But right now, it should be incubated in draftspace until the event is much closer. Bandit Heeler (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures of Ricky Deen

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boodee_Keerthisena#Filmography: for now (and add the sources there; the article about the director needs a bit of cleanup). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of social media links, but hardly any news at all about this film. I don't find any sourcing we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Muoto

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

Strictly promotional and non-notable Amigao (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia

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

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in its current form is extremely problematic; Siege of Belgrade (1521) is not a "conflict between Bosnia and Serbia". The nom's concerns would still apply even if only entries like War of Hum were included. It should not have been accepted at AFC, but I see no need to draftify it now. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . uf, there are all sorts of apples and oranges in this hodgepodge! (Shouldn't, say, Serbs of Bosnia rebelling against Ottomans be Bosnians fighting Ottomans, etc.?)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional keep~~. If the author of the article can write and source the article with the changes I list below (I welcome critiques and suggestions from the opposers @Joy, @Santasa99):

Bosnian War. The only point during the war during which an entity formally referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form) was in a state of war with an entity formally referred to as "Bosnia" (shortened form) was in April–May 1992 when the Socialist Republic of Serbia, as a constituent of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia or "Yugoslavia" (shortened form) was at war with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina were sometimes colloquially grouped together with Yugoslavia as "Serbia", but such nomenclature is not standard practice in this encyclopedia. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1992–1995" with "1992".
World War II in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Territorial control initially shifted from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the German Reich and Kingdom of Italy, partly transferred to the Independent State of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). at no point was the formal English name for either the Yugoslav government-in-exile or the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland "Serbia", although their political administration eventually included an entity referred to as "Serbia", parallel to to the Banovina of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). Beginning with 25 Novemeber 1943, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that by that time included an entity "Serbia", so the inclusion of the entry is acceptable. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1941–1945" with "1943–1945". A more complex note will be required, complete with references, to explain its inclusion to the reader. Complicated by the fact that the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia also included a "Serbia", meaning "Serbia" was both an enemy and an ally of "Bosnia".
Second Serbian Uprising. The Bosnia Eyalet (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that already considered itself the Principality of Serbia and was referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form), so there can be no objection to its inclusion provided you can source this. However, I would advise striking the sometimes problematic contents of the entire Location column as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
Hadži-Prodan's rebellion. Its inclusion is problematic. Yes, it was a "Serbian" uprising, but so was the uprising of 1882 for the most part. Both uprisings featured armies loyal to "Serbia" by that name (in translation), but demonstrating that practically requires the use of primary sources, so they are more appropriate for a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbs" type article (see List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts) than a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbia".

Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791). It was this conflict that saw the resurgence of "Serbia" as a territorial entity in the first conflict since the death of Jovan Nenad, but it is missing from the list.
"Uprising in Herzegovina". Involved an army that mostly desired Austrian rule with a more religious than territorial conception of "Serbia", despite the term's use in a broader sense with undefined borders and administrative structure, making it ineligible for this list.
Strike the "Uprising in Drobnjaci", the Siege of Belgrade and the Hungarian-Serbian War from the list.
Entries from War of Hum through "Fifth Battle of Srebrenica" needs heavy revision, including additions, merges and clarifications. During this period, both states formally referred to as "Bosnia" and as "Serbia" existed, and conflicts involving both entities in a state of war ought to be included, but only with the appropriate caveats. Part of the issue involves states having rival claims to the title "Serbia"; see List of wars involving Russia for a possible solution.

Ivan (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all of this is WP:NOR - if no historian would extend the description of e.g. Second Serbian Uprising as an "armed conflict between Bosnia and Serbia", then we can't do that either. By the fact that the term Bosnia isn't even mentioned in that article, it's safe to assume that we're looking at a hard fail here. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedib if you want a source for the inclusion of the First Serbian Uprising:

Teinović, Bratislav M. (2020). "Преглед политичког живота у босанском ејалету (1804–1878)" [A review of the political life in the Bosnian eyalet (1804–1878)]. Kultura polisa. 17 (42): 137–154. eISSN 2812-9466. Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима. [Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]

Ivan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a source for a historian, because that seems to be a political science journal and the first Google hit for Bratislav Teinović is Institut za političke studije. We would absolutely not be serving the average English reader well if we try to serve them this in lieu of actual secondary sources relevant to the topic. --Joy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The journal describes itself as "a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal, which publishes original scientific manuscripts on topics from the humanities and social sciences field".^[1] The reviewers that year included historians Darko Gavrilović, Davor Pauković, Nebojša Kuzmanović, Vassilis Petsinis and Wolfgang Rohrbach.^[2] The website you cited for Teinović is not his primary affiliation, which is the Muzej Republike Srpske (according to that page and elsewhere). An understandable mistake. He received degrees in history from B.A. in 2001 through Ph.D. in 2019 at the University of Banja Luka.^[3] But this is just one of a number of sources stating as much. Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw he's also associated with a museum - but that's not reassuring at all, because some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. The issue here should still be fairly obvious - this person has 75 mentions on Google Scholar, where someone like Sima Ćirković has 1560. I've linked the policy on original research twice already, here's now a link to WP:RS for more information on identifying reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a counterclaim from Ćirković, please do provide it, and I will introduce that into the article in parallel. Even then, one would have to cite more than one source to show something is against consensus. Citation counts are a poor metric for determining what is and is not a "RS", especially in a field of study as small as the wartime politics of the Bosnia Eyalet in the early 19th century. Some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. I laugh in agreement, but while Teinović himself is associated with a museum, the work in question was published in a journal published by a university. And some of the best scholarly works I've read have been associated with museums. Especially true for archaeological museums. I wouldn't cite Teinović for 1992 because he was effectively WP:INVOLVED even though his military service did not begin until 1994. But he is one of the few to have defended a doctoral dissertation to encompass the war of 1804–1813.

The worst that could be levied against Teinović is not providing reasoning for what to call the Bosnia Eyalet ("Bosnia") and the new Serbian state ("Serbia"), but the only work I know of offhand that discusses extensively the English terminology for the Serbian state during the First Serbian Uprising is only available in a few libraries currently unavailable to me, so I couldn't quote from it. Although there are many scholarly sources calling Serbia by that name when discussing this time period, as is the case with Bosnia, there are only a few sources discussing the involvement of Bosnia (and especially Sinan Pasha) in the suppression of the uprising. Maybe 10-20 at most. I chose a recent one with a concise statement for quotation purposes, but there are plenty of others you could select to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.

For an English example that discusses the formal name of Serbia during the revolution with "Karageorge Petrović, supreme commander in Serbia"^: 115 while also describing "Bosnia" and "Serbia" in conflict:^: 125

Baković, Dušan T. (2006). "A Balkan-Style French Revolution? The 1804 Serbian Uprising in European Perspective". Balcanica: Annual of the Institute for Balkan Studies. 36: 113–128. ISSN 2406-0801. The resounding victory of 12,000 Serbians over the powerful 20,000-strong army of Bosnian beys at the Battle of Mišar in 1806 raised hopes among Serbian peasants in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge's Serbia.

Ivan (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the new "First Serbian Uprising" entry for a rough idea of what my version would look like. Ivan (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, did you just oppose the underpinning of WP:V? :D The burden of proof that something is out there is on the parties trying to introduce this list article. Y'all have to convince everyone else that this would be the encyclopedia describing something from the real world. If all you have is scattered, vaguely relevant mentions of the topic from vaguely relevant sources, that's just not it. The Bataković 2006 citation likewise does not support the case for this list article - yes, there's a sentence that talks of Bosnian beys, but then it also talks of Ottoman rule and the next sentences talk of Ottoman troops and Muslim violence and Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslim forces and it goes on and on. If we cherry-picked any one of these appellations and chose to create a list article based on that, it would be absolute madness. --Joy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am communicating that I can rescue the article, because its subject is something from the real world. An entity known as "Bosnia" has been in conflict with an entity known as "Serbia" on 6 occasions since 1788 and on more still before the death of Pavle Bakić. The Tanzimat reforms removed most of the autonomy the pashas of Bosnia had previously enjoyed, so you could make the case for excluding the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878). But even the Serbian Despotate in exile enjoyed considerable military autonomy, to say nothing of the Banate of Bosnia. These were entities that could be punished if they did not answer a call to arms, but were so autonomous that they often did not, and often undertook military campaigns on their own, with little to no involvement of the central authority they answered to.

The relevant portion of the Bataković quotation is in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge’s Serbia, but the preceding part shows that at times it was specifically the Bosnia Eyalet that was in conflict with Revolutionary Serbia. I still need to introduce more sources to help delimit the duration of conflict between those specific entities, but I have already shown that parts of the conflict are indeed described by historians as one between Bosnia and Serbia. And that is the norm rather than the exception for those parts of the conflict. So it is not a redundant duplicate of "List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts", as "List of conflicts between Devonshire and the Upper Palatinate" would be a redundant duplicate of "List of conflicts between England and Germany".

Your opposition is because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. My support is because both "Bosnia" and "Serbia" were usually singular, militarily independent entities even when they were vassals. The Banate of Bosnia was on average even more independent than the Banate of Croatia, yet the latter's ban Pavao Šubić was so powerful he became ban of both entities following his conquest of the latter in 1302, entirely of his own initiative and with hardly any input from the King of Hungary.

Ivan (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, List of conflicts between England and Germany could have a redundant duplicate - if it existed. It probably doesn't exist because it's not a topic area that attracts so much contrived conflict. If this list is just going to be replicating low-quality nationalist axe-griding from the real world - Wikipedia still shouldn't have to include it, and WP:ARBMAC has a very clear rule against furtherance of outside conflicts. --Joy (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently rewriting the article. In a few days, it should be well-sourced. Ivan (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, I am pretty much totally mentally and physically incapacitated with the heat wave we are experiencing around the Adriatic for the last few days. I barely managing to open my laptop and concentrate, and your proposal requires giving some real thought. But, if you think that you can somehow fix it, and if Joy gets on board, I won't oppose. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you. Ivan (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations#List of wars. Good last point, @Joy. For the most part, "List of wars involving Entity A" is sufficient, otherwise the possible combinations would produce thousands of stub articles. There are a few exceptions, such as List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. But List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia is shorter and could be relegated to a section within Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations. Ivan (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFC reviewer comment: I accepted this with the understanding that it would probably get sent straight to AfD, on the grounds that the topic is broadly notable and this kind of more specific editorial decision ought to have some kind of consensus rather than just be the decision of a single AfC reviewer, especially since it's an obvious POV magnet. (Judging from the above, I was right.) If it's deleted, I think it's pretty likely that someone will try to create it again, so if this doesn't end as a merge-and-redirect, it's probably worth salting this one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Judging from the above, I was right. Out of curiosity, what POV do you think I represent? Ivan (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I was implying that you or anyone else in this discussion was POV-pushing, I apologise for that. What I meant by Judging from the above, I was right. is that the fact that the discussion above is so extensive shows that this is indeed a topic that requires broader consensus than a single AfC reviewer's opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ Bjelajac, Željko (n.d.). "About the journal". Kultura polisa.
^ Bjelajac, Željko (2020). "List of reviewers for the year 2020". Kultura polisa.
^ Milošević, Borivoje; Branković, Boško; Vasin, Goran; Niković, Nenad (2019-06-20). "Извјештај о оцјени урађене докторске дисертације" (PDF). University of Banja Luka.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to hear from some new editors about how to consider whether: 1) there is improper original research (current consensus is leaning towards yes) and 2) whether or not deletion or something else is the right remedy if there is improper OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has changed drastically between the first discussion and now, and will likely continue to improve for several days. Ivan (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been substantial changes to the article since its nomination and removal of content seen as problematic in this discussion. Does this make a difference in participants' assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Céphas Bansah

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

Lacks notability, reliable sources. Page was probably created in relation to Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe which was deleted in this Afd. Seems to be another one of those fake titles selling businesses.

Account that started the page was blocked for being a promotion only account and other CoI editors are in the edit history. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Kategoria e Parë players

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

Same type of list as was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign Norwegian First Division players - foreign players in a country's second tier of football, which is not fully professional (not that that matters as much as it used to). Some first-tier leagues that had their lists deleted include this and this.

There are no sources. The list is painfully far from being complete, has problems with maintenance, being outdated and generally abandoned. I believe this falls on the wrong side of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" as prohibited by WP:NOT, as quoted in WP:LISTN. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero references, total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Moved to draftspace by Drmies. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memaliaj Massacre

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Shooting isn't notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to draft space during this nomination. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:32, 24 July 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.

Arled Hoti

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

Probable autobiography about an unknown footballer. No sources passing WP:SPORTCRIT are present, and I only get 15 google hits for Arled Hoti. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about autobiography is based on the name the creator used to have, in fact until this very day, when the user was renamed. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 24 July 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)} 21:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem

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

Lack of RS and notability.

This is a fantasist order that is trying to piggyback off of the original Knights Templar to make it seem like the organization is well known but upon closer inspection all the sources are unreliable or primary sources - from the org itself. Be aware that the page is primarily about the organization supposedly founded in 1962, a lot of the history prior to that on the page can be disregarded and is better covered on other pages.

Websites related to the group are: smotj.org, osmth.org, osmtj.global

The academia.edu papers are published there by "Daniel J Clausen" and don't seem to be peer reviewed or anything. Daniel J Clausen is himself part of the organization of course. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Royalty and nobility. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this needs to be completely rewritten I have run into sigcov of this group several times while looking into related groups - from looking at that, I remember having the feeling this page was highly misleading. Additionally a surface level search pulls up a lot of hits from reliable sources. They might be larpers, but they are notable.

IIRC, they are covered in significant detail in The Order of the Solar Temple: The Temple of Death, with several pages running down their history (they were like three degrees removed from the solar temple so it was context) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if it is kept I will rewrite it. I can't promise soon but I plan to make all the articles related to the Order of the Solar Temple Not Terrible and this was one of the organizations in the Neo-templarism larp mileau at the time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

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

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Filming has started and coverage existing online seems significant enough. Redirect or Draft if other users don't think it is. Very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Boyce

(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. All I came across was this blog post and a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Missouri. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Margenson

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Could be redirected to List of United States men's international soccer players as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United States of America, and Rhode Island. Let'srun (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st Asianet Film Awards

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

One of many WP:CFORKS for Asianet Film Awards created by now blocked/banned user. Sources I find in a WP:BEFORE are not significant enough to show notability for this segment of the award. The information is also covered in the main pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted or the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST for navigation reasons. Not all years for the awards have their page but that's not a reason to delete those that exist. See category. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list, it is an event. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure

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

Fails WP:GNG, with few reviews or significant coverage in reliable sources. This is one of the only reviews I could find, and it's in a publication of uncertain reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ciberbit

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

Written like an advertisement and fails WP:NCORP with a lack of any significant coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Software, and Portugal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjith Israel

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

It is only a beginner who is a volunteer, only one or two sources and only a small mention is included in the reference. Does not prove other notability. WP:ANYBIO,WP:GNG are failed. ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete 103.99.192.2 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Jubilee Medal 2022

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

Non notable award without reliable sources. Page was started by a user with CoI issues elsewhere. The other major editor is blocked for wiki abuse D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBhasha

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mifflin, Indiana

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

Another case where it appears to have been only a post office. No other info found. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interestingly, there is a sign there that says "Welcome to Mifflin" [5] which was added sometime between 2007 and 2023. The restaurant that likely put it up claim the area is "Still known as Mifflin" [6] and there appears to be an article about Mifflin. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, there is an article from February 2010 from the Clarion News. Newspapers.com access for Wikimedia users seems to be down but here it is.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun H. Shami

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

Is this person notable? Google News yields no hits, and a lot of the references here are completely inappropriate, e.g. his employer's own website, LinkedIn profile, and Google Scholar profile. Uhooep (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Yagutilov

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a filmmaker and photographer, and cannot find reliable sources to add. I thought it possible the Gold Remi award from the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival might make him notable, but this is not the highest award they give and I cannot find verification of the 2004 award winners. I do not think he is notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NFILMMAKER. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Photography, and Russia. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In a BEFORE search, I am finding precisely nothing on this photographer/filmmaker other than his own user-submitted content, social media, YouTube uploads and the like. Zero significant coverage. Does not meet WP criteria for GNG, or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joever

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

The article ~~only contains one reliable secondary source~~ [Ammendment: The Forbes source was written by a contributor] contains no reliable secondary sources that talk about the word "joever". The rest are sources that use the word in their headlines. This fails the general notability criteria because the topic does not have 1) signifcant coverage in 2) secondary sources. The only other coverage I could find in reliable sources is trivial mentions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary. All coverage is trivial, and we’re not off to a good start when the second paragraph is WP:FORBESCON.

-1ctinus📝🗨 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that the Forbes article was unreliable; I will ammend my opening statement. That brings the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources down to zero. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a notable neologism/meme. Unclear if anything would need to be merged to paragraph at Withdrawal_of_Joe_Biden_from_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election#Debate_aftermath. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. As it stands, the cultural significance of the meme is too small and is better left as a minor cultural note on Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election, Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, and Let's Go Brandon or Sleepy Joe (nickname). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wikt:Joever, or alternatively to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Nearly no secondary coverage meeting WP:NEO. The "Background" section isn't about the term, and the sources in the "Growth and use in media" section are trivial mentions, which basically use the word without much (or any) discussion of it. The one in-depth source is from WP:FORBESCON. hinnk (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary: No evidence reliable secondary WP:SIGCOV for this portmanteau to warrant it's own article. IceBergYYC (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath since there's already existing content written about the meme in that section. Some1 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath and merge a few sentences of this article to a new subsection there. The phrase itself has seen a fair amount of use both on social media and in news headlines, but it's fairly self-explanatory and there hasn't been a lot of discussion of it. Here's what I found in mostly-reliable sources.

NYTimes: "Tina Wargo, 31, learned of the shake-up from a text inviting her to a party. “It’s Joever,” read the event name, said Ms. Wargo, who lives in Brooklyn and works for a theater ticketing company. She initially thought it was a joke, but was surprised to learn otherwise after seeing posts from Taylor Swift-related accounts on X using the same pun."
Teen Vogue uses the phrase and embeds tweets with the meme
CNET in a human-written article discusses usage of the term
Austin American-Statesman mentions the phrase and embeds a tweet with it. Djkauffman (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for getting these. I honestly feel like if we give it a year, a few communications scholars will have written articles about it and then it'll be worthy of a C-Class article. Ornov Ganguly TALK 01:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. This probably isn't a subject deserving of an article on its own, but the phrase is mentioned in the withdrawal article as an element of the movement to get Biden to drop out. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content there might be original research. While this is related to the destination of a potential redirect location, I'd rather not crowd the discussion here, so I've made a comment on that article's talk page. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Generation Z slang since it's a meme phrase that is used by gen z people GodzillamanRor (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable because there is coverage in 3 reliable secondary sources after searching Google News:

142.113.140.146 (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that sources also have to be significant coverage, not just a passing use of it... Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered acceptable WP:SIGCOV of this meme? A "book-length history" is not expected to exist. I don't think my sources look like "newspaper article about Bill Clinton, ... part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice ... a trivial mention of that band" because they focus on the meme topic specifically. I also added 7 more sources (mostly reliable but some unlisted at RSP but found in Special:LinkSearch) with coverage ranging from the overall meme to several individual aspects of the meme. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A neologism/meme that had a half-life of maybe a week. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to support WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTNEO, or WP:NTEMP claims that it has a half-life of maybe a week when the meme is from 2023, and therefore it clearly isn't "neo" and has been ongoing for more than 1 year. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Towfigh

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

Highly promotional article which doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Medicine, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional. Not notable – fails WP:NPROF. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Knob, Indiana

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

The reference given doesn't pan out per se but elsewhere in the same work it lists the place as a "postal village", which is to say, just a post office. There is nothing significant at the spot. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augustan Society

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

I can find no evidence that this 'society' (an incorporated company) meets Wikipedia notability criteria. The article is pure advertising. According to its own website [7], it offers 'services' such as 'Recognition of Noble Titles', 'Recognition of membership in Orders of Chivalry' etc, but fails to demonstrate that such 'recognition' has any value whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's title weirdo stuff and it's being used to prop up similar orgs that should be deleted for lacking notability and credibility like the American_Heraldry_Society(old successful AfD), Royal Order of the Engabu, Royal Order of the Omujwaara Kondo and Patriarchal Order of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (Fall Out Boy song)

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

The article is based on album reviews for Infinity on High. so it doesn't establish a separate WP:SIGCOV. I searched sources independently and I found two, both from NME,[8][9] one written from Patrick Stump's point of view and the other from Pete Wentz's view. Those sources don't say anything different from what is already said by the sources present in the article. And Infinity on High mentions part of the article's content anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infinity on High: sources in article only make very brief mentions of the song, and the same goes for the two NME articles the nominator linked. Nowhere near enough for an independent article. I wouldn't oppose a merger if there are any valuable statements included here which aren't already in the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG - The article is comprehensive and there is commentary about the song in multiple reliable sources. Slant Magazine, Northern Valley Suburbanite, Alternative Press, Guitar.com. Additionally the song leads with an introduction from Jay Z which garnered much press like in the Los Angeles Times and other major media outlets.Note, as the article's main author I was not notified of this AfD. Bruxton (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I would have said the same. The article itself is not the issue, but the sources are. They are all about the album, so the critics naturally write about the songs featured in the album from that perspective. For example, "I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers" is also mentioned by two of the sources you included and some sources included at Infinity on High, but that doesn't mean we should have an article for it. This was practically the conclusion reached at previous AFD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Hands. A good example of how this is reversed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song), a song that was marignally notable when it was released, but that gained independent notability after an external event created that notability; that is, being used in a TV series and secondary sources discussing it independently from the album. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (into Infinity on High) - it has good info, but I agree with the nom. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here from DYK and I am the editor who approved this article's nomination when it ran on the main page. During the approval process many editors, administrators and readers vetted the article. The article clearly meets our general notability guide. A topic is "notable" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to write a good encyclopedic article. I think that is what we have here, a good encyclopedic article about the song, based on multiple secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can refer to WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not focus on the SNG - WP:NSONG, according to WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I believe that it meets GNG based on the RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, they are not a reason to keep the page alone. Some sources are trivial and none of the sources present is about the song alone; they are about the album, regardless on how you'd like to word it. As I said before, just because the sources at Infinity on High#References mention songs like Don't You Know Who I Think I Am?, I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers, or Bang the Doldrums, we have to create their articles based on album reviews that trivially reviewed them from the album's perspective, like it occured with Thriller (Fall Out Boy song).

On the talk page I left the sources review. I don't see the independent, non-trivial, non-passing mentions content that indicate significant coverage that is independent from the parent album. I see sources speaking about the song from the album's context focusing on being named after a Michael Jackson album and inadvertently having a rap intro by Jay-Z, both facts that can be covered by the album's composition section.

As much as you'd like to keep the page, this hadn't had to run on the main page in the first place and you made a mistake by approving an article built on trivialities. Proof of this is the fact that this song hasn't been discussed by critics in subsequent releases thoroughly and it needs to have a background that doesn't even mention the song and has to rely exclusively on trivial album mentions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made seven edits to the article and you have typed 6527 characters (1062 words) in an effort to remove an article that is only 2963 characters (517 words). This AfD time-suck is an example of why I am not as active in deletion lately. You have lost credibility in your source assessment because I randomly looked at #9: you referred to three full paragraphs discussing the song as a passing mention. And #15 you refer to an article which features this song as one of 15 heaviest songs as a passing mention. I am not going to focus on all the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Also I really need to start observing WP:COAL and maybe you should too. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keeping this article and Merge/Redirect it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we can see more participation to come to a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Infinity on High: love the band and the song, but think per WP:NOPAGE the worthwhile content is better saved for the album page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD'ed in 2007 and 2016 (both closed as keep), I closed the 2020 AfD as "delete", the article was later draftified but then moved back to main space without much change nearly 3 years later. My WP:G4 speedy nomination was declined with the note "this may yet need to face a 3rd AfD". WP:Notability per WP:GNG is still in question. This article should either be fully and officially be re-accepted in WP's D&D coverage including being listed in Template:D&D topics, or be re-deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources added to the article since the last AFD, ~~but failing that merge to Centaurs in popular culture~~. BOZ (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centaurs in popular culture - The non-primary sourced material is extremely minimal, being largely either the same very obvious "Centaurs are based on mythological Centaurs" statement that was deemed insufficient in the last AFD, or a couple of sentences in what are essentially game guides. Some are literally just one-sentence mentions stating that "Centaurs are half-horse", making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing to indicate that the D&D specific version of centaurs either pass the WP:GNG, nor are any more notable than any of the other entries in the Centaurs in popular culture list that would justify making the existing entry any longer. Rorshacma (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per Rorshacma; once the excessive details from D&D handbooks is discounted, there is not enough coverage for a separate article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one accepts (and obviously many do not) that the topic is 'centaur', then the D&D sources are themselves non-trivial reliable sources independent of 'centaur' as a topic. Now, that may take a bit to wrap one's mind around, but centaur is a public domain concept, used in plenty of contemporary fiction and entertainment media. Why is what Gary Gygax & co. wrote problematic, but what Rick Riordan wrote acceptable? It is nothing more than an artifact of how the topic of 'centaur' is split up into multiple articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an article on centaurs in Rick Riordan's books, I would presumably vote to redirect that as well. I don't see how "D&D didn't invent centaurs" is supposed to prove "D&D handbooks are independent coverage of the topic of centaurs in D&D". Walsh90210 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough non-handbook (and non-WotC) sources have been presented that I'm striking my redirect vote. Some merge might still be reasonable; that could be proposed later. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the small coverage in book sources + more extensive sources in various web article like this one, which do provide commentary on their relevance. Failing that, merge to Centaurs in popular culture - there is new content now not present at the target, and I plan to add some more. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book, but there does appear to be commentary ("For players entering a D&D campaign with a lot of fierce adventure, a Pheres Raider might be a good choice." with a link to an article about Icewind Dale). It ain't deep, but secondary sources don't need to be to be, well, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Centaurs get their own heading in Keith Ammann's The Monsters Know What They're Doing, which in combination with the content already in the article is good enough for me. Someone might want to add content from TMKWTD, though. BD2412 T 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Centaurs in popular culture (or Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons), or merge as compromise. Several sources do not meet our WP:RS standards, and in total they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate the editors who are striving for WP:CONSENSUS by suggesting more than one !vote preference. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is present, merging is impossible at this point due to the size of the article. Agree with @Jclemens basing on this essay. Vorann Gencov (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly, coverage before 5th edition probably doesn't get over the WP:N bar. But there is now a surprisingly large amount of material covering this topic. An entire article on the latest iteration of this. Another article which analyzes a primary source on the topic. Third-party coverage of the topic [10] exists. Just the 3 secondary sources I've listed puts it over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:VALNET Screen Rant does not contribute to the notability of a subject. Is there an idea of RPGBot being notable? It seems very much like a blog site and I'm not sure on the reliability of the specific author. I am also not certain on the reliability Belloflostsouls, though that one at least seems to be part of a company. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I mentioned above, that particular Screenrant article is nothing but a shortened rewording of the official content taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Which is pretty typical of the kind of low-quality churnalism that Valent sources tend to produce, that offers no actual commentary or analysis of their own, and simply regurgitates official information as an "article". Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VALNET specifically calls Screen Rant reliable enough for things other than BLPs. There is certainly no consensus in the RfC that it cannot be used to meet WP:N. BoLS is certainly meets the Wikipedia definition of reliable. RPGnet is a WP:RS/SPS case. I quite comfortable saying the author is widely acknowledged as an expert and is well-known for his work. But that one is debatable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." The only exceptions are when there's already significant reception that Valnet can be used to augment, or if it's from TheGamer post August 2020, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Screen Rant does not help meet Notability, and per Rorshacma, it's only rewording official content, and not offering its own perspective, meaning that even if it did it isn't saying much either way.
The RfC on Screen Rant, the only discussion on that specific site AFAICT, didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not sure where that line came from, but the specific discussion on this topic didn't get there. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the basic description of Valnet sources in the section (The paragraph above the individual cells). There's case by case uses per each source's use clause (Namely TheGamer being considered reliable and stuff like Android Police and MakeUseOf being considered generally unreliable in all use cases) but most sources that fall into the marginally reliable category tend to fall under the umbrella description I quoted above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoLS seems to be mostly discussing dev info, and any Reception seems to largely pertain to how it impacts the gameplay of the specific game. That kind of discussion is iffy, since unless it's something like Brawl Meta Knight, it typically isn't able to prove notability independently of the subject, as the discussion is entirely around its association with the subject. As for RPGnet, I can't speak on the author since I have no idea about anything related to them, so I'll leave consensus on that source with editors more experienced than me on that matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BoLS article is solely about Centaurs in D&D. I don't know how it could get any more on point than that. It is specific to 5e, but I don't see how that's relevant unless you're arguing that we can't have this article but could have one on the narrower topic of Centaurs in 5e D&D. And I do know a lot about RPGNet. All I can say with certainty is that they have a reasonable claim to being an expert in the field. I think I've beat this topic to death, so unless specifically requested, I'll drop out of the discussion and let others have their say. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The bulk of the sources presented are VALNET sources, which are do not contribute to the GNG bar. Most other sources are minimal for the benefits of this article, and I'm not seeing much presented here in terms of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as of yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Mannekkara

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO - sourced to PR/puff pieces.
Earlier draft: Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor who wrote this article made a Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara on 08:13, 22 June 2024 and kept it and later made a new article with a slight change in the title, which is a wrong trend and does not prove WP:NBIO. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the editor who made this page did a mistake by creating a draft and then again creating it into the main space, maybe he is a newbie that's why....but if we look at the person's page, he was awarded the community Leader Award from the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation which is a state award from the person's home state which is in Kerala and the Fulbright Foundation’s Global Changemaker Award in 2023 which is a International award given by the US Government which i believe at least qualify the award category of the people's notability guidelines according to the guidelines written in Wikipedia. This guy also has a significant coverage in The Times of India, Economics Times , Ahmedabad Mirror which i believe is considered reliable in Wikipedia. So we have 2 of the 3 basic criteria except the national dictionary thing ....also While reading the content of these articles i don't see any kind of sponsored post written or a disclaimer in the news coverage these are just my analysis. SATavr (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be ignorance / new editor who wrote the draft and then made a new page, but destroyed the first edits in the first draft and deleted it in a completely unrecognizable form, added another person to it and added it to his date of birth and created a misunderstanding because of lack of knowledge?? Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara Difference between revisions [11], Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara 2nd Difference between revisions[12] Spworld2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you. It was a stupid mistake done by this new editor and i think he lacks the patience for it and just wanted to go directly with a shortcut way for publication. Thats why he change the draft content to a different person and he thought we would'nt know lol..... I believe he has learned a lesson not to do it again and i hope he has got to know that things doesnt workout like this. SATavr (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A before search comes up with many sources. (e.g. [1] [2]. Numerous articles featuring the names appear, the most of them in Hindi and English. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR/churnalism doesn’t count. Both articles are just advertorials for his car company.-KH-1 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles discuss his side automobile firm, yet his Wikipedia biography hardly ever mentions this information. The autogenerated nature of these stories is not disclaimed, as is typically the case. The name of the publisher, Sunil Chaurasia, is also mentioned in The Economic Times. His social work is the subject of major pieces that don't appear to be PR or churnalism. They include original research, such as his participation in and thorough coverage of the Sankesh Foundation and the Smiles Foundation. - [3] which is covered in the Ahmedabad Mirror. Another example is his relationship with Shyalash C, his mentor, which isn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page but is confirmed as original research in Punjab Kesari - [4]. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to hear from some more experienced editors about whether sourcing is sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is currently serving as a Global Peace Ambassador under UN75. He has been awarded the Fulbright Award and a State Government Award from Kerala. He meets the basic criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. With regards to his sources the news articles on his social work looks fine but the same cannot be said for some of his articles written about his second-hand car business found in google but considering that his Wikipedia page does not cover his car business, overall, it looks fine to me. Master rollo (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seriously asking for experienced editors who frequent AFD discussions to review this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only get two pages of Gnews results, most are by "staff" or puff pieces/advertorials. The Fullbright sounds promising, but without sourcing we can't confirm, nor do we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find was this [13]; GTranslate seems to say it's a staff piece, so likely about as unreliable as the rest of what's already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest searching by his full name, Muhammad Faris Mannekkara, to find additional articles about him. Also, please check the sources listed on his Wikipedia page. it maybe possible that his articles are ranked poorly in google search engine. that's why less result are been shown but if you try his full name which act like a keyword you will find the news article. Regarding his Fulbright award, it is published in this source as well. [5].

When i am doing the Google Translate for this article - [3] it is referring the person as "she" instead of "He" and is not translating the words in a properly manner. Also the article mentions the author's name as well - Gaurav Tiwari which means it contradict the claim that it was written by multiple staff. Also there aren't any disclaimer that says this story is autogenerated. Blackwatch007 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Faris Mannekkara is currently serving as a Peace Ambassador for the United Nations. His notable achievements include receiving the prestigious Fulbright Award and a State Government Award from the Kerala government. He meets the criteria for WP BIO due to his significant contributions and recognition in his field. There are numerous secondary sources available on Google that document his extensive career in social service, highlighting his impact and dedication. Angiemcc2023 (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

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

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [14][15], a one-paragraph entry at [16] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [17][18] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb ^talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, and Technology. Sdkb ^talk 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm a fan of his youtube channel, but it's hard to find things about it. This seems like a RS [19], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [20], [21] and this which I think is also a RS [22]. We probably have at least enough for a basic article about this person, or the youtube channel he hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also a fan of his YouTube channel but the sources provided thus far are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately weak delete. The DigitalCameraWorld source above is the only one that qualifies for a full unit of SIGCOV, while the rest don't quite meet the mark, even when combined. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domonique Ramirez

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

WP:BLP1E applies here, as there is no coverage present for this subject outside of a brief and non-significant controversy from a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hulburd

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as a unelected candidate for congress, who did not receive the requisite WP:SIGCOV outside of his failed campaign. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Mateer (musician)

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

Almost no independent or reliable sourcing. Sourcing that is independent and reliable does not provide WP:SIGCOV, if it mentions the article subject at all which many of the sources in the article do not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas Mateer for a previous discussion which ended in the author (the same as for the current article) requested deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This nomination is not even worth exerting energy on. There are articles/sources from Forbes, CNN, Seventeen Magazine, Teen Vogue, New York Daily News, BBC Three, ABC, NBC & Los Angeles Times. Many of these articles are exclusively written about the subject with zero involvement from the subject. There is also a German academic thesis cited — amongst other things — that speaks on the significance of the subject. Some of these articles from top news and media outlets on the globe even state having reached out to the subject for comment but received no reply. Excruciatingly blatant examples of independent, reliable and significant coverage.

WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and then some with this article & it’s sourcing.

🂡🂡9t5 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of those examples here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish:

Forbes, Forbes again, CBS, CNN, Seventeen Magazine, Teen Vogue, New York Daily News, Philly Voice, BBC3, ABC, The Weather Channel & Los Angeles Times, Social Media Activism in the Obama Era - Thesis (p. 171-173 — labeled on the document as p. 166-168)

Not to be argumentative, but these are all available directly in the reference section of the article.

Regards, 9t5 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sigcov there. A paragraph about social media response to the assault in a non-peer reviewed paper, a few video clips about a storm, and some routine coverage of a single event does not establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider significant coverage if not an assault drawing attention from the national media to the lack of hate crime protections for LGBT people in Pennsylvania? As for the storm, there I suggest watching the documentaries referenced, all of which feature the subject. I am almost certain at one point there was also a reference to the inclusion of the subject in a recap of the year 2012 that was televised in the program "20/20".. I’ll have to look. You are asserting your personal opinion by regarding these things as insignificant, but given one of these events you suggest is insignificant was apparently significant enough for a German scholar to include it in her PhD thesis, and considering the article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies — perhaps it’s just significant events within the LGBT community that you find insignificant? I ask you kindly to take a look at this. Can you further elaborate on why you assert its insignificance, and furthermore can you reference sections of Wikipedia’s guidelines that back your stance? I look forward to your reply.

The Fordham Ram (US)

"Updating Gay Hate Crime Legislation"

January 18, 2021 · by: Jaclyn Weiner

MediaUpdate.co.za (ZA)

"Superstorm New York: What Really Happened"

November 14, 2012

PRNewswire (US)

"National Geographic Channel To Air First In-Depth Cable Documentary On Wrath And Destruction Of Hurricane Sandy In Superstorm 2012"

November 12, 2012

Stereo Stickman (US)

"John Mateer's 'New York Sound'"

January 16, 2024 · by: Rebecca Cullen

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (US)

"John Mateer: Hate crimes laws protect people like me - and you"

May 28, 2023 · by: John Mateer

Philly Voice (US)

"Man says he was beaten by PSU fraternity member because he's gay"

November 15, 2019 · by: Daniel Craig

Opposing Views (US)

"'Don't Let A Frat Guy Know That You're Gay': Teen Allegedly Beaten Up At Penn State"

March 8, 2018 · by: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

StateCollege.com (US)

"Penn State Student Charged in Alleged Anti-Gay Assault"

October 15, 2015 · by: Zach Berger

Onward State (US)

"Penn State Altoona Student Charged Following Alleged Homophobic Assault"

October 15, 2015 · by: Megan Fleming

The Underground (US)

"Mateer's Assault and Homophobia at Penn State"

October 12, 2015 · by: Adam Tidball

Total Frat Move (US)

"Viral Tweet Accuses PSU Fraternity Member Of Beating Guy Up For Being Gay, Police Find Suspect Isn't Actually In Fraternity"

October 8, 2015 · by: Harrison Lee

Seventeen (US)

"Gay Teen Brutally Attacked Outside a Penn State Frat House"

October 8, 2015 · by: Elizabeth Denton

COED (US)

"Teen Claims PSU Student Assaulted Him For Being Gay"

October 7, 2015 · by: Alexa Lyons

Logo TV (US)

"GAY TEEN VICIOUSLY BEATEN AT PENN STATE AFTER REVEALING HE IS GAY"

October 7, 2015 · by: Matthew Tharrett

Gay Star News (US)

"Gay college student visiting Penn State comes out outside fraternity house, gets beaten"

October 7, 2015

Teen Vogue (US)

"This Teen Was Beaten Outside a Penn State Frat House After Revealing That He's Gay"

October 7, 2015 · by: Emma Sarran Webster

Edge Media Network (US)

"NY Teen Says Penn State Frat Member Beat Him Over Sexuality"

October 6, 2015

Pink News (GB)

"Police investigate alleged assault on college teen by 'frat member'"

October 6, 2015 · by: JOSEPH MCCORMICK

Edge (US)

"NY Teen Says Penn State Frat Member Beat Him Over Sexuality"

October 6, 2015

Towleroad (US)

"Police Investigating Alleged Anti-Gay Assault of Man at Penn State University"

October 6, 2015 · by: Ande Towle

Metro (US)

"Man claims he was gay bashed by Penn State frat guy"

October 6, 2015 · by: Matthew Lee

NY Daily News (US)

"Long Island teen claims Penn State fraternity member beat him for being gay: 'Don't let a frat guy know that you're gay'"

October 6, 2015 · by: Melissa Chan

Fox 5 New York (US)

"Police investigate possible anti-gay beating"

October 5, 2015

The Tab (US)

"Gay man allegedly beaten in North Burrowes assault"

October 5, 2015

Inside Edition (US)

"Police Investigate After Teen Says He Was Assaulted at Penn State University For Being Gay"
October 4, 2015 · by: IE Staff

Channel Guide Magazine (US)

"Long Island Medium Season 4 recap of 'Bouffants and Bingo'"

June 16, 2013 · by: Barb Oates

CBS 6 (US)

"Trees fall in NY neighborhood as Sandy comes ashore"

November 2, 2012 · by: Sandi Cauley

Forbes (US)

"Sandy Through The Eyes of YouTube and a Drone: Falling Trees, Fires and Flooding"

November 2, 2012 · by: Kashmir Hill

Pirman (ES)

"'Esto es el 'Apocalipsis'. Sandy videos: Caída de árboles. Fuego. Olas gigantes."

October 31, 2012

Aristegui Noticias (MX)

"'Frankenstorm' se llevó hasta los árboles en EU"

October 31, 2012

CNET (US)

"Sandy video: Falling trees. Fire. 'Apocalypse'"

October 31, 2012 · by: Chris Matyszczyk

Mashable (US)

"'This Is the Apocalypse' Video Shows Sandy Destruction"

October 30, 2012 · by: Stephanie Haberman

Klix (BA)

"Pogledajte s kakvom lakocom uragan Sandy cupa drvece"

October 30, 2012

BostInno (US)

"'Hurricane Sandy 3 Trees Fall and Fire' Becomes Next Double Rainbow Guy"

October 30, 2012 · by: Sam Dwyer

Regards, 9t5 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again, not to be argumentative but your nomination statement states:

Almost no independent or reliable sourcing.

I genuinely respect this project and certainly your role as an admin, but I am starting to become disheartened by certain editors who use privileges to take Wikipedia Policy & Guidelines and distort them in any way they need to in order to fit their argument.

A community leader should be more than willing to admit oversight or accept that while they hold a high seat, it’s meant to be used to enforce the policy that already exists as is not redefine it without consensus. I am respectfully concluding my involvement in this discussion as I would like to hear the opinions of our peers, but I wish you all the best and it was nice meeting you. 9t5 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ScottishFinnishRadish Apologies, I did not comment on your mention of the first nomination discussion. That discussion took place before I developed the article and I requested speedy delete as the author to provide me time to develop the article. This was before I knew I could vote to draftify, which other contributors to the discussion were suggesting — including Liz, who personally reached out telling me she didn’t want me to give up on the article.

I am unsure why you believe that previous removal of an article at the authors request means that subsequent versions of the article are forevermore subject to deletion, even following development and appropriate sourcing.

I am interested to see how this discussion goes, but I stand behind this nomination being a waste of everyone’s time.

🂡🂡9t5 20:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your signature smaller. Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De'Anyers family

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurrate statement, the sources listed are entirley comprehensive, I ask which ones precisely are 'tangential'.

Notability is sufficent as seen in the extensive sources primary and secondary. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss which sources in particular do not provide significant coverage and see where we go from there, I am aware that there are yes a significant number of sources used which may convey this, however are consolidated by a number of reliable and imparital sources used in this article as well as other articles of a similar nature which cover landed families. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proposing Keep, I have had a look through the source list comprehensivley and would very much like to discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus.at some point ? several main sources used for the article are all impartial and well known genealogical publications - Burkes, Ormerods, ect. The Battle Abbey Role by the Duchess of Cleveland published I believe in the 1890s covering the families on the scroll, also a book on a biography of the family. Other verified wikipedia pages exist for 3 members of the family listed on the page as well as others not mentioned (artists William Daniell and Thomas Daniell, and Thomas Daniel)

The issue is perhaps the interchangable use of De'Anyers and Daniell between sources however this I have found to be the historical case.. in looking to upload several Van Dyck portraits (Peter Daniell MP) and his sister and aunt I have found them to be listed as De'Anyers however it is the same family.

I am happy to explore and make any edits you may suggest ? (I wondered if perhaps some paragraphs could be slimmed down slightly). However based on pages existing for other identical landed families in Cheshire (several of whom intermarried and are included in the Daniell article) and based on historical significance, and the other reasons mentioned It has its place on wiki, and just needs fleshing out being comparativley newer, which I was activley working on :). Starktoncollosal (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources go into significant prose depth on the family? Keep in mind that genealogies and other directories are not SIGCOV. Coverage of individual members of the family does not count towards notability of the family. Primary sources and passing mentions do not count at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source 6 - A Biography written on the family, and 1 certainly are the first to spring to mind. Can I ask the issue with primary sources coming from an academic writing background in early modern history i thought inclusion of these would bolster an articles notability and conslodiate its relevance ? I understand that for one or two members having pages not warranting a notability claim but surley the case can be made for, as seen in other noble families pages, members consistently throughout an extended time period having influence (as nobility did), - thus warranting notability ? Starktoncollosal (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential candidate firsts

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while claims can individually be verified, the set as a whole suffers from the same issues as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. I read through the prior AfD for this page and find the keep rationales expressed there unpersuasive (and essentially identical to the arguments raised in the later discussions I've linked here that were both closed delete) Wikilawyering: I think that the close of the first AfD for this page is particularly incongruous with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts two weeks later, a page with a much stronger claim to meeting LISTN, as sources compiling the firsts of US presidents as a set do exist, but which was closed as no consensus...but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. There is possibly some information in this page that could be merged to related biographies or related lists, although other than perhaps List of United States presidential firsts there is unlikely to be a good candidate for this to redirect to post-merge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Not sure how we could delete this one, when it comes to Presidents, we have Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the presidential candidate if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NLIST merely states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Simply pointing out that an article doesn't meet a Wikipedia policy criteria that merely states "one accepted reason" for meeting notability is not itself a valid argument for deleting a page. And this is clearly a notable topic, as demonstrated by the numerous sources on this page as well as recent media coverage such as the The Washington Post which have discussed presidential candidate firsts. Orser67 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover this, it has references to prove that. Dream Focus 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine presidential firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while individual claims can mostly be verified, there don't appear to be any publications dedicated to discussing Philippine presidential firsts as a set, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Philippines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican presidential firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, Does not meet WP:LISTN, while individual claims can mostly be verified, there don't appear to be any publication dedicated to discussing Mexican presidential firsts as a set, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian prime ministerial firsts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Mexico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Desperate Hours (Aiello novel)

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

I could not find a single review for this book, failing WP:NBOOK -1ctinus📝🗨 11:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obeng II

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

The page is self-promotional, made by individuals with a CoI. They have a website at royalhousemim.org for selling titles and Order memberships and whatnot but the house and orders are only of interest to fantasists.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No significant coverage to prove notability. The sources cited on the current article are either self-published, or citations that contain invalid links: at least two were for fundraisers, one was of a book totally unrelated to the article, one says Arlington Herald on the title, but is a self-published WordPress site, among other WordPress sites on the references. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Purely promotional and not remotely supported by any credible reliable sources. At least two of the sources cited (royalhousemim.org and augustansociety.org) may well merit adding to our blacklist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete I think it not to be deleted. Randomiaedit (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

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

All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, and Internet. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to remove all references to her previous identity as Selen. Otherwise, redirect to Nijisanji. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 04:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the previous identity User:Hansen Sebastian, I don't see any BLP or privacy issues. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you found two other reliable sources, User:ArcticSeeress , for different events, and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India], then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply? I feel I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you found two other reliable sources - Maybe I should have worded my opening statement better. I only found one reliable source (Siliconera) that talks about the subject beyond the single event, per WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".

and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply - I'm not sure I understand this. WP:1E makes no reference to the geographic breadth of the sources. The coverage being international does not change the fact that most of it is about a single event. Also, I could not find sources in any other languages; sources generally also have the original word in Latin writing, so I'm certain you could find them pretty easily by searching "Dokibird". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Lakmal

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

Although subject may be covered by WP:NCRICKET (Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level [...] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof), with a single appearance for a club side more than 20 years ago, there is no indication the subject has received significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline. C 679 10:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. C 679 10:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment - either one article is the problem or thousands. And if we isolate individual articles - in both English and non-English speaking countries - this does nothing to solve the problem we've landed ourselves in. Bobo . 17:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found any WP:SIGCOV confirmation. Tau Corvi (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 NRL pre-season results

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

I want to propose that the 2022 NRL pre-season results be redirected to National Rugby League#Pre-season or deleted, in addition to the 2023 NRL pre-season results and 2024 NRL pre-season results articles being renamed to 2023 NRL Pre-season Challenge and 2024 NRL Pre-season Challenge respectively. A collection of independently organised friendlies grouped on to one page is a trivial list and the information is better suited on the "2022 [team] season" pages. As for 2023 and 2024, these were organised by the NRL and the title of those pages should reflect the official name "Pre-season Challenge".

I understand muti page move would have likely been a better format for this discussion, however the template did not seem to function properly. Mn1548 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative could be to merge/redirect to 2022 NRL season#Pre-season, adding details from the background but not the fixtures section. There are only four NRL teams without 2022 season articles, Raiders, Roosters, Tigers, and Warriors, so all the matches apart from 2 (Roosters against Raiders and Tigers) are covered by these articles. EdwardUK (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a more appropriate redirect, thanks. Mn1548 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Disagreeing with the contention to rename the 2023 and 2024 articles. Both include additional information (trials, All Stars etc) that don't quite fit into the NRL's "Pre-season Challenge" nomenclature. I think the article in question here is a reasonable fork from the 2022 NRL season results article, which effectively captures the intention of these pre-season results articles. If anything (and this is especially true in the WP:RL space), these articles just require more prose. Storm machine (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree with most of this, though it still doesn't cover my main issue with the page - its title. "2022 NRL season results" implies there is some sort of formal organisation by the NRL, which there wasn't until 2023 and the pre-season challenge. Re 2023 and 2024, the non pre-season challenge information is minimal, and can be moved to the pre-season section of the respective NRL season page leaving the pre-season page as purely pre-season challenge information. Mn1548 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie M. Frost

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

Fails to pass the general notability guidelines. Zero coverage online beyond a couple of related obituaries. Article is mostly cited to her husband's book. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Note that in such cases you can make a WP:BUNDLE nomination. Tercer (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be the standard story of that time of a woman who became a schoolteacher, got married, and then vanished from the public record. I can't read the supposedly archived newspaper.com links, but [1] and [9] appear to be about her husband, [2] is a paid family death notice, [3-8] are neither independent nor reliably published, and [10] appears to be a brief marriage announcement. That is far from enough for GNG, the only relevant notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Frost

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

Fails to pass the notability guidelines for academics. While the article says that she was a 'Distinguished Professor', none of the sources nor the Capital Community College website match that. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For further context, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pervasive,_deliberate_falsification_of_sources_in_hoax_articles_from_COI_editor; this article is part of a series from the same author. jp×g 🗯️ 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. The only source that could potentially indicate that turned out to be just a press release. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Tercer (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources are either published by the subject or close relatives. A cursory google search did not turn up more either. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few minutes ago I indicated in the discussion of two dissertations why I didn't think she was notable enough for an article. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think distinguished professor at a community college should count for WP:PROF#C5 and we have no documentation of that title, nor evidence of any other form of notability. Searching Google Scholar for her publications found nothing of note, instead mostly finding publications by some five other people named Janet Frost (themselves not cited heavily enough for WP:PROF). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Connecticut, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 6

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

No reliable sources [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 09:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Spaceflight, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. It's very likely to become an article with many reliable sources closer to the flight. --mfb (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine

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

Run-off-the-mill merchandise without impact (WP:N). It has the same problems as List of Buffyverse guidebooks. Its existence is already summarized in one sentence in the TV show's main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Journalism. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without doing a search for this, I think this could be safely merged to an appropriate article cataloguing such things. I don't see how it needs its own article. Having said that, Buffy merchandise and fandom is definitely a topic that's been covered in RS'es, so deletion is not warranted even if merging clearly is. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in education

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

Very likely AI generated, with manually added citations. User has uploaded AI generated text to multiple articles before. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sample text: "potential to revolutionize learning processes, personalize instruction, and improve educational outcomes...improve student engagement, provide customized learning experiences, and streamline administrative tasks." Oh boy, I just won LLM bingo. As for sources, references 4 and 7 are real, but 7 never mentions AI at all, making it a case of SYNTH. Reference 13 also looks legit, though I don't have access to the full text to check its relevance. The others I didn't check but don't trust. AI in education is obviously a notable concept, but if the author can't put in the effort to write the article themself, why should the rest of us put in the effort to clean it up? Delete and let someone who actually wants to write an article write the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all of the referenced articles and books exist, but it seems unlikely that the sources are actually being used and accurately reflect the text. For one, [12] is referencing a 112 page book, but doesn't have page numbers for this list of 6 vague bullet points. Recon rabbit 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has made multiple LLM generated edits to articles, and has only added sources when they've been reverted, with no changes to the text. Sources are likely randomly picked from a cursory google search of random keywords. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be what happened here too. Cirations added later, seperately, and with no changes to the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_in_education&diff=1225283548&oldid=1225276997 Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Congress

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG in meaningful ways. No sign of lasting impact or import beyond the less-than-twenty-sentence Georgia Straight piece and the old radio interview, both from early 2014, I find no real coverage. The only thing I can find from anywhere but the archives of their own website that suggests the group did anything beyond a single cooking demonstration in 2014 was a line in a 2019 blog post about Vegan Congress being an annual event at Emily Carr University. Google and Duck-Duck-Go searches were based on searching for "Vegan Congress" "Emily Carr" to avoid references to an early organization that had Vegan Congress in their name. newspapers.com search from the group's founding date in 2013 to today (for just "vegan congress") found nada. Group's YouTube page delivered 4 videos to its 11 subscribers, all marked as a decade old. Group's web page has been blank for several years now, last non-blank archived version has a single blog post from 2019, and before that, all activity is 2015 or earlier. This is a grou[p that was briefly active, did little of visibility and impact. Nat Gertler (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayans in Germany

AfDs for this article:

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

Tiny diaspora group, a couple thousand in a country of 80 million. Wikipedia is not for every thinkable cross-national immigrant group in the world. I cannot fathom how this passes GNG either. Furthermore, Notability is not inherited by a group by virtue of a couple of notable individuals holding this ethnicity. The fact that Germany accepted some communists is better conveyed by a sentence in Germany–Uruguay relations. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Uruguay. CptViraj (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Coliseum (West Georgia)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: The page is a very short stub. While it does have a full table, there is nowhere near enough information on the page due to the lack of history and, presumably, lack of coverage on the construction and events at the venue. I actually considered constructing a Wikipedia article for The Coliseum back in November 2023, but I chose Halenbeck Hall instead due to the former's lack of resources. Centennial Center (Georgia College & State) would have certainly been a better choice for making a Wikipedia article. Wjenkins96 (talk)

Comment This page was created without the {{afd2}} tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now—I am neutral at this time. @Wjenkins96: For future nominations, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 06:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Basketball, Volleyball, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Nominator does not cite any policies, and it is a notable venue given its status as a Division I arena and as the region's premier concert and special events venue. This is the Wolves' first season in Division I; if it was deleted, it would be the only Division I arena not to have its own article. Let's leave it up for a bit to give other editors a chance to improve it and fix what's lacking. Tom Danson (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for helping User:Wjenkins96 with this AFD, please follow all of the instructions to the letter next time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's That Girl (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, this film should not have an article yet. This article has been draftified by KingArti twice despite the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, and the draftification has been reverted. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions: and addd a line there; until filming starts and more is known, maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON would be the wisest choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mister World countries

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

Insufficient sourcing. The single source here is Pageantopolis, a personal website described by consensus at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as not suitable for establishing notability. It's been tagged as under-referenced for a decade without any improvement and is unlikely to change. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever. Admins always do what they please, so just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagontaas, Bukidnon

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

This does not satisfy WP:NPLACE as sources I found are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Philippines. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia,_Bukidnon#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator was blocked and I can't assume this was good-faith to begin with per their ANI adventures; the fact that the subject was found after six years only solidifies the case's N/GNG bonafides. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 16:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Alex Batty

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

Not really notable enough person for an article, i've seen lots of missing person and children articles but Alex Batty only became relevant again once he was found. Missing children are always being reported and I don't see how this stands out to others. BasketballDog21 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and Spain. BasketballDog21 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator has been blocked as a sock. Borgenland (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough citations to pass WP:GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:08, 24 July 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.

Skyler Milne

(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. A few sentences here, a pair of sentences here, but nothing significant. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habari

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Per the articles talk page this article has had two substantive nominations for deletion and the main advocate for keeping this article - User:Morydd - is hardly an unbiased source, considering that they're also a member of the Habari project on Github: https://github.com/morydd I find the original nominators arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) to be valid, more so now that the project has been now abandoned for ~10 years. Furthermore, the last afd was more than 15 years ago TerraFrost (talk) 03:18, 24 July 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 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough RSes, seems to be a byproduct of contemporary recentism. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durian Industries

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources here and what I find in a WP:BEFORE are unreliable and not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikio Group

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly PR and the company website also draws a blank. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 3:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sources from PR campaigns and searches did not yield any useful result that could sustain the page. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Gujarati

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

Lot's of churnalism and unreliable sources, including a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously tagged but still cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE. If anything, recommending a redirect to Viacom18 as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "only Gujarati general entertainment channel in the market", as says a bylined article in the TOI. Also see: https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/55161_viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-regional-cluster-revenue-grew-by-22-sudhanshu-vats ; https://www.agencyreporter.com/viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-2/ or Books : Regional Language Television in India: Profiles and Perspectives (2021); Indian Silver Screen (2021), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are just regurgitation of announcements that the channel is going to launch. Anyone can put out a press release that gets picked up by the media and re-run in different news outlets. This is not something that would count towards notability. I also do not put much stock in TOI, especially since it looks like it will not be considered towards notability based on current WP:RSN discussion (to be determined of course). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but to Colors TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riceville, Indiana

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

Indications are that this is a rail point which someone hoped would grow into a town, but which never did. Searching was not helped by Google's insistence on giving me hits about people named Rice and about Riceville, Iowa, but I got nothing solid. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find a passing mention in a history book: [23], and the place appears on USGS maps, but never as more than a couple of houses, which is what it is today. If sources appear I could be persuaded to change to keep, but not with what we have now. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Note there is a Riceville in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, making it a lot harder to find relevant info. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Manifestations

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Could not find any significant independent coverage of this book in ProQuest or Google. The current article is a mess of WP:OR with (broken) citations including Amazon, auction websites, and library catalogs. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wild & Bare

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searching throws up articles about the Founder, but trivial coverage about the organisation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikilover3509 (talk) 2:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the only salvageable information is related to the founder, since sources related to Wild & Bare are trivial/daily news with no lasting impact. Maybe an article could be created on Jean Alberti and the content here merged and redirected. Recon rabbit 20:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Kapital, Volume I

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

Don't see why each separate volume of Das Kapital would need its own article. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs trimming, but seems to be a valid page split overall. Each volume is quite different from the other, so including detailed analyses (as would be expected with a foundational work) of all three into one article would bloat it beyond compare. Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one, it differs from the others in that it was the only volume that was published before Marx died. The volumes came years apart and are obviously standalone works in addition to bearing an overarching title. The book had almost two decades of reception before the second volume came out. Its bearing on world history has not been commented by the nominator, who has not provided a real reason for deletion either. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge I'm not sure we have such a lengthy summary of many other books besides the Bible. The main article should include a better more concise summary and the two short sections at the bottom. Reywas92^Talk 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many, many scholarly studies have been written about volume I of Capital. For example (titles I pulled from two minutes of Googling...) there's Fredric Jameson's Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One and Riccardo Bellofiore/Nicola Taylor's collection The Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume I of Marx's Capital. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sole spinout of a series of three volumes covered at the WP:SS parent topic. I'm not seeing any issue with the way this is logically organized, and notability is not seriously in question. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a member of the GSE Composite Index, so WP:LISTED probably applies here. A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company. Brandon (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search result you presented all come from a single source which is News Ghana and seems to be unreliable news website. At the bottom of all their articles they ask people to send in their news stories to a Gmail address. Which reliable media organisation uses such an email server? Besides, some of the articles about the subject published by the source (News Ghana) you presented are also attributed to GNA (Ghana News Agency) indicating that the articles are syndicated sponsored posts. Over all, the source you presented is not reliable and lacking in editorial oversight as it seems incapable to source its own news stories. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me as I am not an expert on media in Ghana. A similar search on the Daily Graphic (Ghana) returns similar results. Same with Business and Financial Times. Are there specific Ghanaian news sources you'd consider reliable? Brandon (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the sources are promotional, that does not mean it is notable. You say you did a before search, but somehow when I search it up I am able to find numerous different sources establishing notability. — 48 JCL 23:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present the sources that establish notability. Before search only brings sponsored or paid for articles and those can't be used to prove notability. Please see my response to the claim of " A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company" above. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may look not sourced well but it meets Listed rule and I see it does have some sufficient reliable sources. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The people suggesting keep need to explain how it meets the expectations for corporations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the vast majority of the third-party content about this company is ineligible to be considered for notability under WP:ORGTRIV, and while WP:LISTED is not a presumption of notability but rather an indication that sources likely exist, I did find a handful of independent, reliable examples of WP:SIGCOV (Modern Ghana here, here, here plus GhanaWeb) that clear the bar of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Kyong-shik

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Malta destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common sense.

Let's start with common sense: why on earth do we have an article listing destinations that Air Malta DOES NOT FLY TO! Every destination here is listed as "terminated" or "Airport Closed"!

WP:NOT is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of services that Air Malta possibly provided at some point but now no longer does.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by Air Malta are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. I could go through every single one of the sources cited but there is little point in repeating the same statement over and over - these are all either company announcements, or reports in local/industry press based entirely on company press-releases and statements. For example the Malta Today story is based entirely on a statement by a company spokesman.

This is also original research. None of these sources show that these flights were offered (or terminated) in January 2023. This can be said because none of the sources are dated to January 2023 - some are later, some are anything up to a decade or more earlier.

This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company that can change from one week to the next. It is the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings in August 1987 or all Pizza Huts in December 1998. Simply the worst kind of indiscriminate information. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists, and Malta. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't believe the debate over airline destinations is still ongoing. Listings of every single place every airline has ever run a service to ever is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's just bizarre. Commercial developments should be folded into main article prose, line changes that aren't part of a wider commercial development just aren't encyclopaedic. BrigadierG (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list of services possibly provided at some point in time, per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at List of Vietnam Airlines destinations. First of all Air Malta is no longer an extant business, so many of the points don't apply. I also have no idea what anyone here believes INDISCRIMINATE means, as there's a clear finite limit to what could possibly be on this list. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to keep a list.... of places... that Air Malta... doesn't fly to...? FOARP (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because where Air Malta operated is encyclopedic information, and a verb tense is easily edited. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where... they don't fly to ... is encyclopaedic? A listing of destinations served on a random date of no actual significance, largely copied off a defunct company website, each listed as "terminated" with no other context, is "a summary of knowledge"? FOARP (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It summarises where they flew shortly before they ceased trading. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
January 2023 was more than a year before they stopped trading in March 2024. In a business where flights change from week to week that's hardly that close to that date. Even worse, this doesn't "[summarise] where they flew shortly before they ceased trading" because these are the destinations they may have flown to at any point up to ten years or more before they ceased trading (one is sourced to a 404 link visited in 2011) and plainly weren't flying to either in January 2023 or in March 2024.

The real point you're trying to make here is that any destination an airline ever flew to is, to you, automatically of encyclopaedic value. I don't think that's a position anyone on Wikipedia outside of airline fandom would endorse. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flights don't necessarily change weekly, and almost every flight change will be noted in at least some publication somewhere. Whenever there's a new flight to where I live it's generally news. There are airlines which wouldn't be notable enough for this information to be kept, but I am not making the argument you think I am making. The only thing we're looking at is if this is notable, and they're clearly of note: [24] [25] [26] [27] and an older [28] Most of your concerns can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the airline is no longer operating I would suggest a reorganization so it's not just a table full of "Terminated", but my points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations apply here as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed seondary sourcing to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:NCORP. The aviation sources would seemingly help little for establishing notability per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air Malta#Destinations. Even if this table were notable, WP:PAGEDECIDE notes that there times when it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; the target for the merge is not too big as to not be able to handle the table, and it makes sense to keep these two together in one article so as to present the information on the destinations within the broader context of the article on the airline. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per @Reywas92 and @SportingFlyer

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. We shouldn't be hosting a list of every single place that Air Malta flew to in history. This is an indiscriminate collection of information because no careful judgment or selectivity was involved in making the list. Even if the airline flew to some random city for a couple months in the 1980s, it gets added to the list. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Shultz

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ohio. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK TTDI Jaya

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG.) The school already has an article in Malay Wikipedia so an English one would be unnecessary. N niyaz (talk) 07:34, 9 July 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 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We should not delete the article on SMK TTDI Jaya. Yes, there is a parallel in another Wikipedia edition. Yet, each language edition has distinct readers and needs. The English version fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In that case, it may be suitable to merge the English content into a broader article about schools in the region. Or, we can draftify it until we find more sources. This approach respects the need for information on other language Wikipedias. It also maintains the quality and notability standards of English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstridMitch (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ms:Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan TTDI Jaya is the other article; unfortunately it is completely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are arguing for a Merge or Redirect, you have to identify an existing article in the English Wikipedia that it can be a viable target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are 11 thousand schools in Malaysia, schools like SMK TTDI Jaya, SMK Seri Kembangan and SMJK Yoke Kuan that lacks notability shouldn't be merged. If the outcome of these schools are merged or keep, it would mean 8-9 thousand schools are also eligible to have an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N niyaz (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Selangor. N niyaz (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senarath Liyana Arachchi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astrology, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Kwang-min

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Lotus Conglomerate

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

Article created as WP:NPOVFACT violation to disparage a WP:BLP [29]. Looks multiple unconnected companies listed under the same umbrella tied together to create an elaborate WP:HOAX and many sections unrelated to company. For actual company, WP:RECENT focus on a single event from the 5 years back, see talk page for details. Previous points removed, I believe remaining actual subject of article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Hence, recommend for deletion.Hibiscus192255 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Finance, Companies, Education, Sports, India, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been editing related articles from many months and I agree with above arguments made. This article’s creation seems a clear [WP:NPOVFACT], there are several unrelated sections and content in the article, minus which it doesn’t meet [WP:NOTABILITY] Rainbowpassion (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does look like article scope is bloated, then per WP:SBST, seems an otherwise minor organization that has received news coverage for only 1 event. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. The US website reference link provided seems like an unrelated organization. Wikilover3509 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned on the talk page, this article lacks proper referencing. It cites several irrelevant sources that do not mention the company. The article talks about two different companies: one based in Nebraska, USA, and another in Dubai, but there is insufficient evidence linking either to Kalki Bhagwan, his son NKV Krishna, or daughter-in-law Preetha Krishna. Additionally, some sections of the article are unrelated to the company. Notably, all sources referring to the company are from 2019, and there is no relevant information available about the company beyond that period.Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khais Millen

AfDs for this article:

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

Immediately refunded after soft deletion in 2023 but no change to address concerns in first AfD. Film writer/director who does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NBIO. Most sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if they mention him at all; there's an interview that's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a single example of WP:SIGCOV that exhibits all the hallmarks of unreliable content of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not enough to pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR AND WP:CREATIVE with at least 3 2 notable films directed and 3 2 written (not mentioning the fact he produced. 2); the said films are notable creations that received independent and in-depth coverage mentioning him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:DIRECTOR are you referring to with "three notable films"? (Only two films he has been involved in even have en-wiki pages and only one of those he directed.) The only criterion I could plausibly see cited is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," but there's no evidence that any of his works are "significant or well-known." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider his debut film as director notable enough. See coverage about it online. It has no page yet on WP, true. Added 2 links to the article. Writer: my bad, I had counted Lipstick, which is a short. Even if it's only two or even if it it was only one, he would pass both SNGs because these works can be considered significant, as coverage shows. I'll leave it at that as he is a really clear pass imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (number of significant films; clarification: 3 or 4 films including 2 directed (Thala; and I count Aakashvani), 2 written (Adithattu and Thala, to which one can add again Aakashvani)); the 1st has received a significant award and is clearly significant imv).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the opening assertion in the nomination: sorry but no change to address concerns in first AfD is an inaccurate statement.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no substantive change. The addition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION citations does not address the concerns in the AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. If those mentions (trivial or not) allow to verify he had an essential role in notable productions they do address the concerns, especially as one mentioned the award for Best Second film that was not mentioned before, unless I am mistaken. I remember checking them (or even adding some) myself back then. I should leave it at that that, as I had said, sorry. Thanks, anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As I noted in the previous AFD, a film he wrote won a second-place regional film award, and for another of his films a child actor won a regional award. Per nomination and subsequent comments by nominator, coverage of the director himself is insufficient per WP:NFILMMAKER. Wikishovel (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civic technology companies

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

Largely redundant of civic technology and dubious sources throughout. The list is largely non-notable organizations. Anything useful here could be merged into civic technology. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely redundant article and the list is stuffed full of things that fail notability. CoconutOctopus talk 06:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subjects of the list are themselves mostly non-notable and nothing that's not already covered at civic technology. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 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.

Frank A. Barnhart

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

I couldn't find any other sources besides the self-published theatre link. Does not meet notability criteria. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, it's not clear (from the article) that the subject is notable according to WP:CREATIVE. If he is, then work needs doing to the article to demonstrate that notability. (Given the article has been tagged with Template:Notability and Template:BLP sources for over 10 years and has not really been edited since then, it feels unlikely that work will be done.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:42, 23 July 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 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is mentioned in this local newspaper review but I wouldn't describe it as WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, Sexuality and gender, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bjelajac, Željko (n.d.). "About the journal". Kultura polisa.

[2] Bjelajac, Željko (2020). "List of reviewers for the year 2020". Kultura polisa.

[3] Milošević, Borivoje; Branković, Boško; Vasin, Goran; Niković, Nenad (2019-06-20). "Извјештај о оцјени урађене докторске дисертације" (PDF). University of Banja Luka.

[1]

[2]

[3]