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

< October 07	October 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Rottweiler Records

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

NCORP fail Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly clearly meets the sense of an important label as given in the WP:MUSIC guideline, and the article has citations indicating the label gets regular coverage in music press. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I’d love to agree with you, because they seem really interesting, but… NCORP not NMUSIC is the right standard to judge them on, and everything I can see in the article is either passing coverage, or basic business process (the sale to new owners) coverage… but nothing giving any sort of extended coverage of the company itself. It’s all “band x signs to Rottweiler Records” and then a ton about band x, but nothing about the company. So weirdly they would count for the band’s notability, but not the company’s. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Pierre Angulaire High School

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

No source to proof notability. Gabriel (……?) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Schools. Gabriel (……?) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: No signs of notability on my own end. Fails NCORP. Best, Reading Beans 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find reliable references that discuss this school in details. B.Korlah (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been removed at the time of creation or in fact never allowed to proceed to the main space. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Port_Harcourt#Education. I just spent a lot of time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starlets Academy and this one is in the same vein, so to keep it short this doesn't meet WP:NORG either but we usually redirect non notable schools where possible. The redirect target has an appropriate section, although that section needs work, and probably explains why we have these unwriteable stubs. The page links secondary schools to a list of Port Harcourt schools with an inclusion criterion that schools must have a page to be on the list. The criterion is wrong and should be changed, or perhaps just merged back into the parent page. Port Harcourt should discuss the local schools, and if they ar enot due for a mention there, then they are not notable for an article either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This secondary school has no single reliable source. Wikipedia is not Google. The school already has a map and no one even knows if it's a new school to verify. They are other school notable which ain't on wikipedia. I believe we should focus our energy on that than non notable schools. No point redirecting as school might be notable in the future as well. Gabriel-> Hello. 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the redirect is not to keep non notable information, but because it is very plausible that someone would seek information on the school. Being non notable, they should be taken to a page that meets their information need. That is the Port Harcourt page, which has an education section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool anyways. I see much sense in what you just said anyways. Gabriel-> Hello. 12:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This school (and no primary or secondary schools) are listed at the suggested redirect target article but there is a link to List of schools in Port Harcourt. Would this be a more appropriate target article if there is an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 8 October 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. ✗plicit 03:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizaveta Levshina

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. No senior-level competitions of any kind. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - seems like a no-brainer. Deb (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 9th at the World Juniors isn't terribly notable (if we had better sourcing, you could perhaps build a case). Rest are sub-national competitions, that I don't think meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1974 Nicosia airport battle

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

This article was recently copied over from simple:Battle of Nicosia Airport ~~spun off from Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus~~, but discussion at Talk:1974 Nicosia airport battle and my own check of available reliable sources have not uncovered sources with significant coverage. I'd be thrilled if anyone could prove me incorrect, but without that I'd propose re-merging this article and covering the topic in a paragraph or two, emulating the references used now in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was taken from simple wikipedia according to the creator here. Also stop changing the name when nobody recognises it as such. As to coverage thats your opinion at this point. ShovelandSpade (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also to clarify the article has over 20 references ranging from journals, to books to news articles, it by more than far is in compliance with wikis notability guidelines, there are a few claims which are unreferenced but I am currently working on adding sources for them too (I didnt make the article so), doubt that warrants article deletion though. ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected it. For more information about WP:SIGCOV, I'd invite you to re-read the article's talk page discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are no reliable sources calling the events at Nicosia Airport during the day of the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, the "Battle of Nicosia Airport". It is WP:OR by a single editor despite protests from editors in the WP:MILHIST project. They have ignored and/or reverted any attempt to address this issue (and are still edit warring).

The information about the event is already in the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, and as the redirect of "Battle of Nicosia Airport" is really OR, I think it is more of a delete (and salt) than a merge. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources in that page indicate both the severity and name the battle of the airport yet two users seem to not only disregard that, are also straight up lying about whats written.

Cyprus mail article- "The battle for Nicosia airport wasn’t – objectively speaking – the bloodiest of the many dark events that took place exactly 50 years ago, but it may have been the most consequential."

Reuters article- "this airport was the theatre of some of the fiercest battles between Greek Cypriot troops and an invading Turkish army in 1974"

Im seriously confused as to why you guys are stiring up such a problem with an article that has more than ample sources, if we compare articles with the same events, such as Battle of Paitilla Airport, the sources are not only very few, but oddly enough its still called "Battle of Paitilla Airport" even though I cant see any of the 5 sources stating that name clearly. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If The Guardian says that there was a pitched "battle" between rioters and police in Trafalgar Square, that does not mean that we create an article for the Battle of Trafalgar Square. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read what im saying and stop going off on a tangent. As youve displayed here, youre moving the goalposts as soon as you see that you are wrong. Also I dont know if youre playing dumb or trolling but what is the difference between "Battle of Nicosia airport" and "1974 Nicosia airport battle"? They both have that keyword battle, so again, I really dont understand your problem with this article when all other articles use the same logic. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including the name of the article you wish to have^ ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the page was created by a sockpuppet and deleted. Now it is recreated again. Users should check the last cases here as they are overlapping edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cypriot_Chauvinist Shadow4dark (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page was brought over from simple wikipedia by user @Athinezos, again, check page history. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been vastly improved since it was brought over by the user from simple wiki, enough sources from both journals and newspaper articles cover the intensity and notability issue, any other issues within the article are likely fixable. If it was, instead of delete it should be placed in the sandbox so that the users that still have an issue can fix it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for some input from editors who weren't part of the conversation on the talk page already - what does a fresh set of eyes have to say here? Also, please don't move articles while they're at AfD. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as suggested. This happened in and around the airport, it wasn't a battle to take over the airport (from what I'm reading in the sourcing). Most sourcing is about the abandoned building, not about this "battle". Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Surgut mid-air collision

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mid-air collision Yet another major aviation incident that russia was completely tight lipped about, sadly, even though its tragic, due to Russia's secrecy it cant warrant an article. if this took place anywhere else it would stand as an article itself. Lolzer3k 14:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to have been an accident of some sort of airline flight. Plus, there were many casualties. If we can find sources and the airline's name, I'll say keep. If not, then as the others said, merge and redirect. The article does need to get fixed. Jeanette Ma' Bakker Martin (talk to me) 00:22, 9 October, 2024 (UTC)

British Bakeries

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

This article cites 2 sources, both of which are trival. One is just a directory listing on the website of the town the company was located in, and the other is a single news article about a single incident of purely local interest. A google search for the company name results in nothing relevant except some AI generated content that appears to be drawn from this article and a couple seemingly-defunct directory listings. The company's website fails DNS. The company fails notability now, and since it doesn't appear to be in business any more the chances of it satisfying the notability criteria in the future seem slim. I'm normally an inclusionist kinda guy but I think we can do without this one. -- LWG ^talk 23:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- LWG ^talk 23:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Emer

AfDs for this article:

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

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [4], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Laughton

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
The attempted notability claims here are "started a record label", "was a member of musical ensembles" and "was artistic director of a music festival", none of which are automatic notability freebies in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them and their work -- but while this was tagged for PROD a few days ago as being completely unsourced, it was then deprodded by an editor who added primary sources (mainly content self-published by Laughton himself and/or organizations directly affiliated with him) rather than reliable or GNG-building ones.
It's also a clear conflict of interest, as the article was first created by the subject himself under his own name.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep (book series)

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

I couldn't find enough good sources to add to show these meet WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Cate Tiernan, but I am not sure how ambiguous the title is. Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just... nuke 90% of it. Searching the individual book's names on ProQuest and EBSCO resulted in several reviews and per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NBOOK it is probably better we have one article. The series itself may also pass GNG: it was released as Wicca, only called Sweep in the US, under which there is an entire journal article discussing the series as a whole and its themes (doi:10.1007/s10583-007-9058-). Haven't done a deeper look though. But wow overdetailed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARCTUROS (organization)

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

Almost all sources provided are primary, and coverage from secondary reliable sources is clearly lacking (in order to pass WP:NORGANISATION). Article also seems a bit promotional, but not enough to be eligible under G11, in my opinion; and is the reason why I brought it here to AfD instead of tagging it under the CSD criterion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Greece. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup

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

Individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:FOOTBALL, no significant coverage and nothing remarkable that merits inclusion of this particular season in comparison with other seasons which don't have articles Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 16/1-L

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

I couldn't find any sources to add to confirm that this meets WP:NPPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy RS Concerts

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

Dollar to a donut all the thai sources are pr flimflam. TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Needs clean-up for tone issues, but I'm not seeing actual reason for deletion. Several of the sources are presenting their own original analysis. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shijiazhuang Donghua Jinlong

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Loewstisch (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there's plenty on the TikTok incident, and I just added a short (about 1 paragraph) cite from New Yorker and an entire article from SCMP from just three weeks ago. Article needs to have some more support for their role in the global glycine market -- it's verifiable (see, e.g., [5]) but notability is from the TikTok incident which continues to be reported on. Oblivy (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myself Allen Swapan

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

Reviewed during New page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Bangladeshi streaming-only series. Of the two references, one is a review and the other is a link to their own commercial. Article was deleted in 2023 due to creation by a banned user and recreated February 2024 by a new user . North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) given a review is cited a redirect to Syndicate_(TV_series)#Spin off is warranted ; 2) but there is plenty of coverage on this (including bylined articles), for example https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/309335/‘myself-allen-swapan’-streaming-this-eid ; https://www.tbsnews.net/splash/myself-allen-swapan-when-spin-outperforms-its-parent-series-622514 ; https://www.indiatoday.in/binge-watch/story/what-happens-when-a-wanted-criminal-pretends-to-be-your-husband-2366489-2023-04-30 : -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twenteen

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

Falls under WP:FORUM Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTDICT; 3/4 of the current sources don't even mention the word. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to release my article, I can try to look for sources that refer directly to twenteenagers. Wiki7Hell (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to find sources that merely mention the word. You need sources that contain significant coverage of the word, beyond a dictionary definition. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my dear, I understand your concern, however I would like to mention that the word "twenteen" is a new word in the English vocabulary, being somewhat difficult to find related articles containing the word "twenteen", which made me look for articles that referred to the same stage of life of twenteens but using relatively similar terms such as "late-teens" and "late-adolescents". In any case, I thank you for your understanding and attention. If you wish to release my article, it is up to you, I just wanted to help. Wiki7Hell (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karima Gouit

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

Fails WP:GNG. There's hardly any reliable sources about this individual. I can only find her social media profiles, which fall under WP:SPS. Skitash (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Cemetery (Washington, D.C.)

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

No indication of notability (or anything useful or informative) in article at all, and it seems as if little beyond routine coverage can be found[6][7]. A redirect to Saint Mary, Mother of God Catholic Church (Washington, D.C.), assuming that they belong together, may be a good alternative. Fram (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Washington, D.C.. Fram (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm baffled why this "article" was created with a single useless sentence and zero independent sources. Do it in draft if you need to, not as micro-stubs without sources. Reywas92^Talk 15:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable.— Moriwen (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apparently, this was begun as a work in progress. This is already listed as a Stub. Editor Another Believer has since added more sourced content that tells us why and when it was established. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "listed as a stub" means, that doesn't make a page notable. None of the sources added are significant coverage. All cemeteries were established at some point, a source providing that date and little else is not a basis for notability. Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I should have been more clear. I was only trying to make the point that the article creator was aware that this article, as is right now, is only a stub and needs work. It might have worked better for the editor to first create the basic article in their own user sub page. But it is what it is, and let's hope the editor can add enough to keep this from being deleted. — Maile (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But which of the sources are establishing notability? A source like [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Glenwood%20Cemetery%20Nomination.pdf this] may note when it was established, but it is a purely passing mention in a source about another cemetery and does not give any indication of notability for this cemetery. Fram (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the Washington Post coverage added, which I think adds sufficient color in prose beyond just listing database records. --Habst (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full text is "ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CEMETERY -- 2121 Lincoln Rd. NE. 202/635-7444. No cemetery office. Gates are open daily from sunrise to sunset. Originally this was a cemetery for St. Mary Mother of God Parish, established in 1845 at 725 Fifth St. NW. This was a working-class cemetery first for German butchers, bakers and others, later for Italians who were stonecutters and laborers. The oldest gravestone is dated Nov. 16, 1862." That's 3 sentences in a long article about the Washington cemeteries. Fram (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More research is needed for this article about a historic site, which should be kept and not deleted. The delete votes aren't even source assessments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time you thought it was fit for the mainstream, and at the time of the delete votes, there were no sources. And I have replied about the sources in the above discussion anyway, as did Reywas. Please, instead of making false claims about the delete votes, write better sourced articles and articles about notable subjects instead. Fram (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is old does not mean it's "historic", and even if something is characterized as such, that does not make it inherently notable or needing a standalone article – this is not on even the local historic inventory. It could be covered through Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Washington#Cemeteries, or List_of_cemeteries_in_the_United_States#District_of_Columbia could also be split to its own list and include this and others without substantive coverage. If you're going to say "more research is needed", then do please it in draft or user space. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be commenting further, now STOP HOUNDING ME AND LEAVE ME ALONE ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to you on an AfD is not hounding, please don't make personal attacks. Fram (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noted as an "interesting cemeter[y]" by The Washington Post in a "by no means complete list". I don't see how readers would benefit by deletion. Station1 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief blurb about a commercial subject (and yes this is still a company, you can buy plots here for ~$1300-$3000) in a local lifestyle piece is nowhere near enough for notability. We need multiple IRS sources of SIGCOV and so far we have none. JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Washington Post mention just confirms that this is a notable D.C. cemetery. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois's 1st House of Representatives district

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

Delete or Merge into Illinois House of Representatives and appropriate elections articles. Unlike other electoral districts in Illinois or sub-national electoral districts in other countries, I do not believe individual state legislative districts in Illinois meet the standards of WP:GNG.

These are not like sub-national ridings in the United Kingdom or Canada, counties in the United States, in which there are political groups organized around district geography. They are not like wards in Chicago in which there are longstanding cultural associations or institutions independent of electoral politics.

Unlike congressional districts in Illinois, they do not elect Democratic or Republican committee-persons to any partisan body nor is there a substantial body of independent coverage regarding even their demographic characteristics.

The districts themselves are rarely written about. The "Representative district history" sections are a history of apportionment of districts generally as evidenced by the fact that all of the articles have identical excerpts. The more modern coverage that does exist is secondary to gerrymandering allegations (and the subsequent lawsuits) or the description of an election. While a subject of an article does not need to be the main topic to be significant coverage, it does need to be more than trivial. TLDR: These districts are not notable due to a lack of substantial, independent coverage just because similar enough entities might be. Mpen320 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are of substantially similar substance as Illinois's 1st House of Representatives district.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike congressional districts in Illinois, they do not elect Democratic or Republican committee-persons to any partisan body - do they not elect members to the Illinois House of Representatives (Democratic or Republican) in partisan elections? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I was referring to the respective State Central Committees of the major parties [8]. Those offices are elected/selected from congressional districts. It is just another way that those districts are covered that state legislative districts are not covered.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because something isn't covered or has full articles doesn't disqualify it from an article. Other states have articles for every senate and legislature (or equivalent) district; just because Illinois does not (likely because many of them are small urban districts) doesn't mean we TNT every article that has been created, and it is undeniably partisan. Nate • (chatter) 16:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is just pointing out other stuff exists on Wikipedia. I also acknowledge legislative districts in other states could very well meet WP:GNG. Your remark about small, urban districts, well these are all small, urban districts with no significant coverage or independent coverage. Also, I have no idea where you are getting that I am being partisan. It's an unfair allegation.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the districts, not your views. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't understand the criticism. This is the nomination procedure for multiple related pages.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure any of the reasons listed qualify this article for deletion. These electoral districts have been around for a long time and are historical. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If they are so historically important, then why has no one been able to find any sort of independent, significant coverage of the districts? It exists for congressional districts. I could find a bunch of coverage on the creation/gerrymander of Illinois's 13th congressional district. I can find plenty of independent, significant coverage of Chicago wards such as Chicago's 11th ward (notably Ward by Ward by David K. Fremond. So why not these if they meet the barrier for significant, independent coverage? The fact that most districts have been around since no earlier than the Cutback Amendment in the early 1980s, is not in of its self meet WP:GNG. It is a classic case of existence does not mean notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet but I'm not ready to close this as "No consensus". More participants would be welcome.

"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: None of the reasons given for deletion/merge are correct. These districts are used for election to the state House and the elections are partisan - see Board of Elections. The members of the sate House are shown as representing these districts - see General Assembly. These districts are exactly the same as constituencies/electoral districts for other sub-national legislatures - UK nations, Canadian provinces, Australian states, Indian states and other US states - all of whom have articles on Wikipedia. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softgarden e-recruiting

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

Fails WP:NCORP for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS; sources both in-article and in my WP:BEFORE search are a blend of WP:ORGTRIV, WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, WP:INTERVIEWs, WP:TRADES, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Software, and Germany. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is trivial, and honestly the refspam makes it look like UPE product. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Shaw Jr.

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

James Shaw Jr. should be deleted because he does not meet Wikipedia's notability threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiawart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The shooting itself, the saving of lives, and the subsequent awards and honors are the notability. I think it's worthy of keeping. Whether or not there needs to be editing might be a POV of how a person reads this. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The way to fix this article so that it doesn't read like a straight violation of WP:1E (notable for only one event) would be to add more detail about Shaw did afterwards. We find out that he gets a lot of awards - OK. But the article doesn't tell us anything about what Shaw did with his fame, except for "consider" running for mayor of Nashville. Tell us what he's been saying publicly – has he taken any position on crime, police, or gun control, for example? Are there any reliable secondary sources discussing his life outside of the one big event and what he's been up to? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there’s ongoing coverage after his one famous act. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the article about the shooting. This individual is only notable for that event, nothing terribly notable about them otherwise. This article has more about the shooting/event than about him as a person. Went to school and got a job, six lines or so, then almost half a page about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional primates in film

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

A vast majority of list is WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:LISTCRIT. I would also support a merge back into List of fictional primates if the outcome isn't deletion. Sir MemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. Sir MemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST (and yes, before I hear it should, it does ALSO meet the criterion for lists, see https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/15-famous-movie-monkeys/ or https://www.cbr.com/movie-tv-greatest-apes-ranked/ or https://collider.com/best-movie-monkeys-ranked/ etc,) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the issue though. This list could easily be merged back into the main article with no length or accessibility issues arising, which is what I assume SPLITLIST concerns. Sir MemeGod  21:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could, maybe, everything is feasible. But should it? SPLITLIST says "Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." Note that there are FIVE detailed lists on the page: this one and List of fictional primates in comics, List of fictional primates in television, List of fictional primates in animation List of fictional primates in literature. If you merge back one, you merge back all the other and then you have an awful navigation experience. I would go even further, and suggest to undo the redirect for List_of_fictional_primates_in_video_games but that might be discussed later maybe. I probably won't make any further comments here. Decide what you think best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional primates per WP:ATD, but this precise of a list fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support synthesizing the pages with repeated info. There is a list of fictional monkeys listed on the [[Pet Monkey]] page, which doesn't fit the other content on that page. I think those fictional characters need to be filtered and moved elsewhere. Monkeywire (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MC Charlene

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is back following its deletion in 2022 and not improved. Leaving aside its WP:PROMO nature and peacocking words ("hype queen," "energy goddess"), the vast majority of sources on this individual are promotional WP:CHURNALISM, WP:INTERVIEWS and tabloid coverage excluded as WP:SIGCOV under WP:SBST. I found only one example of WP:SIGCOV qualifying toward notability (in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet) and we'd need to see more to keep this page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, Health and fitness, Cameroon, and Norway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : For a Norwegian/Cameroonian musical individual, there is a lack of coverage in both countries, only in Nigeria [9] which has the usual puffy language. I'd expect something from the home crowd if this person was notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Colour me surprised. Coverage in Norwegian median [10], [11]. Not a ton of coverage, but with the zillion Nigerian sources, I'd give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two Norwegian links are more or less the same article, built on a third piece, the original in Bergensavisen. There was another piece by the same journalist in Bergensavisen in 2020. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Santos Rios

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

Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The Senate Resolution and the House Resolution indicate that while very accomplished, this individual would receive run of the mill coverage of a typical mayor in the United States. Mpen320 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mayors in a smaller territory like the CMNI have a greater influence on its politics than a similar municipality in Texas for example. As mayor of Saipan, its capital, Santos Rios represented the majority of the population of the Northern Mariana Islands. Anyone elected to this particular elected office is as influential within the CMNI as other "territorial-wide" elected politicians, and Santos is no exception. Scanlan (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Can you explain how he meets WP:GNG then? Similar mayors of cities in the continental United States do not necessarily qualify on basis of their influential position alone, but some like Wilmot Collins of Helena, Montana do.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The islands are tiny and don't have many media outlets, so coverage is sparse to begin with. [12] and [13] are coverage about the nomination and award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability has not been demonstrated. Deb (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is still divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 63 RB Nihaloana Sahmal

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm that this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed per nom. Reliable sources not available. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is eligible for soft deletion, but judging by the page history, if soft deleted, this will be requested at undelete. Can we get some more participation here? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collibra

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

Profile of a corporation, recently recreated after a PROD, still fails WP:NCORP. All sources are to the organization's own website and/or press releases, or they are WP:ORGTRIV (news of expansions, capital raises, etc) that don't constitute WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to some sources, one of their products has been rated as the leading product in its category by Gartner's Magic Quadrant. Should not that make it notable? Sauer202 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that claim is... Collibra itself! Any Gartner coverage of this is hidden behind paywalls on the Gartner website, so I haven't seen it, but I suspect it would qualify as WP:ORGTRIV under as "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists." Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Power Cricket League

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fievel's Playland

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

Fails the WP:NOPAGE test under WP:GNG for a standalone page with insufficient WP:SIGCOV of this theme park attraction in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Multiple editors have sought to redirect but have been reverted, so I'd ask for an AfD consensus here to redirect to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions#Fievel's Playland & Fievel's Water Slide. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rag Doll (character)

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

Fails WP:GNG weak sourcing Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Stala

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

Subject fails the notability guidelines for policitians. Being a candidate in an election or running unsuccessfully is not what makes a politician notable but winning the election and only if the position in itself is a significant one. Sources are either run of the mill or routine coverages, and no substantial coverage, hence, none satisfies the general notability guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 1. ŽFL

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

No sources in article, and I found nothing on Google. The creator keeps moving it back from draftspace, and would probably remove a PROD. There's also a claim to significance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Montenegro. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modhalum Kaadhalum

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

This is actually the third deletion discussion. Originally deleted under this discussion in early 2023 prior to being recreated under alternative name which was then a no consensus at this discussion. Out of the 21 references listed on the page this is the only reference that may be notable but I cannot read it so not sure. The rest fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. Would recommend a redirect to the original program it is based on (Yeh Hai Mohabbatein). CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Also have a strong references from (The Times of India, medianews4u.com, Dinamalar, Indian Express Tamil). It was one of the famous show, and also notable cast. Original program and Tamil version are very different.. story was also changes. also cast also different. the original version was aired 1,895 episodes (lot of cast and long story), Tamil version was aired only 304 episodes. i am against of recommend a redirect to the original program. i don't Kmow why, You are very interested in deleting this article. This is third time for Nomination of Modhalum Kaadhalum for deletion. Strong Keep--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references that you state (which I am assuming are the ones on the page) are all unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Cast, number of episodes, it being a "famous show" has no bearing on notability unless there is significant coverage from RELIABLE sources to support. Can you link to the sources that are significant (and reliable)? Please do not link to anything that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and add sources like https://tamil.timesnownews.com/entertainment/modhalum-kaadhalum-serial-last-episode-coming-soon-at-vijay-tv-big-shock-to-fans-vikram-vedha-thanvi-article-110957049 (or similar articles in the same media, all bylined) or https://www.skspread.com/vijay-tv-modhalum-kaadhalum-serial-ending-soon-latest-news/ ; some of the numerous TOI articles can be used for verification; at the very least, redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Vijay#Scripted_series_2 or merge with the article about the series it is a reboot of (Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai#Spin-off, rather than the original series, but would that help the reader as much as a page? Not sure. And a lot of informations would be lost. (Opposed to deletion, too) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Yeh_Hai_Mohabbatein#Adaptations. Per nom. Sources are poor to unreliable like source 1,2,4,6,12,13,18,20,21 and the others fall in WP:NEWSORGINDIA criteria with promotion and launch of the show, mentions on debut of an actress, exit of an actress and cast additions. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai: or other target as proposed to be enforced by blocks or protection. I was AfD1 closer and AfD2 nom and I still don't think this meets the requirements for independent notability as sourcing is far from sufficient. Star Mississippi 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or REDIRECT: Poor sources. Low notability. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a source evaluation: simply grouping all the TOI sources under RSNOI without properly evaluating each and every source seems inappropriate especially when the RFC on TOI does acknowledge that only some articles have issues.

After all, this is an Indian TV show and the only sources that will discuss this is Indian sources. Simply eliminating almost every source under this RSNOI from an information page doesn’t seem like a well thought-out rationale, especially when only TOI is on WP:RSPS. — Karnataka 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that was not done. They were evaluated and are churnalism falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If there is one you feel isn't, please provide the link and I will have a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficiently sourced. Times of India is usable per WP:TOI. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perspective to have. However, being usable does not mean it can be used to establish notability. That is also the reason why I did not discredit these simply for being from the TOI. The many RfCs have concluded that the TOI needs additional consideration to determine if if it reliable for that specific reference. I checked them all and these are churnalism and promotional. If you want to provide some that you feel can be used to establish notability, I will have a look and withdraw the nomination if they are usable to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st MMC – Sliven

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

Does not cite any sources, after a google search does not seem to have any sources available on the internet, article has not been edited for 4 years and most probably contains original research TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bulgaria. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bulgarian constituencies. The rest of Bulgaria's constitencies are in similar state, so I would recommend the same for them. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Middlebrook

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of page that has been twice deleted in two prior AfD discussions, the most recent in 2021. It doesn't appear that very much has changed. There is a 2024 podcast type interview, but this does not appear to me to contribute much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Economics, and Middle East. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete All the sources are of the form that imply notability, but they're just not robust enough as sources to really stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the third time and Salt. Promotional puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Warraich (clan)

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

Clan fails WP:GNG. Recent draftification and redirection have both been reverted. GTrang (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OKS Turkey

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

Turkey is continually inventing, renaming and scrapping exams. The article has no sources to show why this exam is notable. Also the Turkish article is tagged that the subject might not be encyclopedic.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECXX

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

Non-notable crypto exchange. No sources worth speaking of. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Singapore. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boğaziçi (Istanbul)

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

Tagged uncited since 2009 and Turkish article is also uncited. Sounds plausible but probably needs a native speaker living in İstanbul to say whether this is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have left a message on WikiProject Turkey if they could help with this. TNM101 (chat) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman: The Animated Series

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

Yesterday, I just made a edit for the article of the forgotten animated series Rayman. It was just fixing up the layout and removing unnecessary materials however, when it came to the sources, most of them tend to have either little or no information, except the interviews.

Also, while I was able to find sources from reliable sources like Nintendojo, but it still isn't enough to save the article so. NatwonTSG^TALK 14:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, and France. NatwonTSG^TALK 14:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if notability can't be established, I'd recommend a (selective) merge to Rayman 2 over outright deletion if it was created as an effort to promote that game. Not all the character/plot notes, but maybe some of the premise and production notes. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and add sources in French; or redirect to the main article, of which this can be considered a detailed article/split. (https://www.jeuxvideo.com/dossiers/00018309/la-serie-rayman-rayman-la-serie-animee-016.htm http://www.planete-jeunesse.com/fiche-3160-rayman.html https://www.lesechos.fr/1999/09/profession-heros-mondial-777380) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1854 in animation

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

Nothing really happened in 1854 in relation to animation. The two listed events are war photography and early (but not the first) instanteneous photographs, leaving us with two births, of someone who was much later influential on animation through his cartoons, and someone who is known as an actress but was one of many people with a magic lantern show. None of this makes 1854 an in any way notable year for animation. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and History. Fram (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the similar lack of notability for the events in e.g. the year 1856 in animation, it may be better to create something like 1850s in animation for these early decades. Fram (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The year pages are for developments in relevant fields, not "the first" or claims of the first. Both the events cited are developments in the History of film technology. Dimadick (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which might make them fine entries for 1854 in film technology. Fram (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - A category tree which we do not have. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - And? How is that a reason to keep an article from a different article tree? The link between e.g. Roger Fenton and his war photography, and animation on the other hand, seems very tenuous at best. Fram (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant WP:SYNTH. Four events are listed, two photographic firsts (neither of which is directly related to animation, except maybe in the article creator's head) and two births, only one of whom would (much later) be involved in animation. None of the sources cited that I can access mention animation. Nothing I can find in a general web search mentions both 1854 and animation, except for animations of the number 1854 and animated retellings of events in 1854. Simply put, animation as we now know it did not exist in 1854, and this article is misinformation. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Başbakanlık Konutu

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

I would have guessed this might be notable but it was tagged uncited in 2011 and there is no Turkish article. I could not find enough good sources to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Politics, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Conger

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

not notable person; I've read all the references and found no one that would address the subject independently and with a big attention. NYTIMES has its own announcement that it fairly nor deep, nor independent as they announced that Kate joined them. Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's the co-author of a newly released book that addresses Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter that itself has been covered by CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC. She and co-author Ryan Mac have appeared on multiple TV outlets to promote their work. Her work as a technology beat reporter speaks for itself. Chammyboy (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep, [14] and [15]. This, in addition to everything else, is at notability Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Few more for good measure [16], [17], [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book's article elsewhere on here has 3 reviews, I'd say she passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User:Qab Bi Av, please review the guidelines at WP:BEFORE - before nominating an article for deletion, you should not just check the current sources but also "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Agree with User:Oaktree b that WP:AUTHOR is the relevant standard, and that she meets criteria #3 - her recent book is the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", including a starred review in Kirkus, Washington Post, The Guardian, another review in The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and The New Statesman. She also meets criteria #1 - her work as a journalist is widely cited. There are a lot of Google Books results for her name. In Google Scholar, searching for her shows a significant number of citations to her articles (examples: 188 citations, 51, 56). Dreamyshade (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:NAUTHOR with their new book, I've added two reviews one from the LA Times and the other from the Guardian. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a pretty easy keep - Conger's been a New York Times reporter for years with controversial and popular articles such as [19] and [20]. In terms of WP:NOTABILITY, she was "She was the first to publish the controversial memo from the then-Google employee James Damore on perceived gender differences."[21][22]. That work was highly cited for the Google Memo. In addition, her work is on syllabi at Stanford University [23] and City University of New York [24]. RubyEmpress (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP User:Qab Bi Av EASY KEEP. Chammyboy (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bakanlıklar

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

Tagged uncited for years and Turkish article also uncited. I searched for sources but it is hard for me to tell if this place is notable as I am not a native speaker and don’t live in Ankara. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a well-known area in downtown Ankara and appears on pretty much all maps of the city. It is a bit like “Whitehall” as a term, and unfortunately literally means “ministries”. There will be sources in Turkish about the history and development of the area and its street, major buildings and historical significance, but trying to fillet that out of the general mass of items just about “ministries” would be a daunting task. Mccapra (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Kunin

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

Only trivial, interviews, etc with no deep real media focus on the Julia. The best piece from ARTnews has this:

“Clay,” she says, “gives me the freedom to create something intense, raw, over the top. It has allowed me to pile things up, break things down, play, and make mistakes.” Kunin loves the immediacy of a material that is “as basic as mud,” she points out. “I am addicted to the unpredictability and iridescence of the glazes I’m using as well as the range of their colors and their psychedelic qualities.”
Kunin grew up in Vermont in the ‘70s..... Later, she says, she rejected clay as a dull brown “craft” material but returned to it in 2003. She started exploring female sexuality and the body and began using octopuses for more metaphorical imagery. Frustrated by a series in cast glass, “I happened on an exhibit by the Chinese artist Ah Xian, who creates busts painted in traditional Chinese porcelain patterns from Jingdezhen, China. That initial spark of an idea has kept me going now for ten years.” Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, New York, and Vermont. Skynxnex (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has a listing in the Getty Ulan, [25] and is covered [26] and [27]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soul (app)

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

Sources are not suitable according to NCORP criteria; Forbes India only has a small sentence about the app. While China Daily only relies on comments from the Soul:

According to Soul, consumers who would like to buy virtual avatars mainly come from first- and second-tier cities. They accounted for more than 44 percent of the total users. Notably, the majority of such consumers are aged between 18 and 27.

Che from Soul said the creator economy would spur innovative business models and new monetization avenues, as users continue to invent and inject vitality.

"More importantly, it has become an important platform for users and creators to build an ecosystem, which furthermore will drive the diversity of the virtual platform and its sustainable development," Che said."Creating avatars helps creators to convert hobbies, personal expressions and creativity into profits and gives birth to new professions like that of avatar creator," said Che Bin, vice-president and product manager of Soul) Qab Bi Av (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, ~~Software, and China~~. Skynxnex (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Dee Theodore

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

Previously Expired PROD. concern was: "Insufficient coverage in reliable sources; accomplishments relate to his company, not him, so he is not notable under WP:NMUSIC"—that still stands. This is just a largely unsourced database entry, and the provided sources do not talk about him but are generic product listing/database entries. Unless new & better sources are introduced, this individual does not appear to have enough sig, in-depth coverage. X (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Bands and musicians,~~ Businesspeople~~, and New York~~. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Zubair Farooq

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

Fails WP:GNG and no evidence or claim of notability. The sourcing is poor, and the article has an overall promotional tone. There are not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Father is notable but that is it. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, and Australia. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artic, Indiana

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

Another "Baker calls it a post office and there's nothing there" pop. place "town"; in this case it might be a rail point but nonetheless seems non-notable beyond the odd spelling. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iltija Mufti

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

The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NPOL. She has received media coverage primarily due to being the daughter of Mehbooba Mufti and granddaughter of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. However, according to WP:INVALIDBIO, there is no clear indication of notability. It does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL is *not* a guideline that can be failed, that is, if a subject does not satisfy the criteria it does not mean they are not notable for Wikipedia. NPOL is an inclusive measure, not exclusionary. NPOL sits separately from the GNG because it provides "presumed notability" - the idea being that a person elected to office is generally likely to have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. FWIW, no comments to date have indicated why sourcing presently in the article does not satisfy the GNG. Regards,Youknow? (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: If you have no comments on how she meets WP:GNG, then what is the basis of your Keep !vote?. There is no significant coverage available about her in the currently cited sources. Which source do you think provides SIGCOV? GrabUp - Talk 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find WP:SIGCOV sources; recent coverage is trivial due to the heated election. Since she lost, she does not meet WP:NPOL. The current sources are also insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La légende de Thierry Mauvignier

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

None of the (non primary) sources here even mention the documentary, they're all on La Légende des seigneurs assassins (which this is a documentary about the making of??? why would someone make an article on the making of film and not the actual main film???). Even with that all the sources here are quite regional French sources under what is required from NFILM, so I have no clue if that other film is notable (could be, just judging off what's in the page). This was deleted on frwiki 3 years ago; I think this and several related articles (Thierry Mauvignier, Dylan Besseau, Guillaume Gevart) may have some promotional stuff going on here and on simple wikipedia but it is difficult to tell what exactly is happening here. There is this I found in a search which might be ok but it is the only thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dylan Besseau: or to Thierry Mauvignier#Biography. (Aside: replying to the nominator's question, the article they quote states: "Although this institutional project was initially intended as a making-of, it has become a work in its own right, surpassing the reputation that Thierry Mauvignier's short film was expected to obtain - the greatest irony for a film that was intended to be rather confidential') -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but it seemed contradictory to me because there are far less sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but I was just trying to reply to your question :D. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arrested Development cast members

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

Redundant to and WP:FORK of List of Arrested Development characters. --wooden superman 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chan (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO, she released one EP which didn't chart, and I can't find significant coverage of her or the EP in reliable sources in English or Chinese. Not notable per WP:NACTOR, as her only lead role was in the film Dreamtrips, and I can't find SIGCOV of the film or her as an actress in reliable sources, apart from that it was screened at a notable festival. In the last AFD, two editors said that it was in the Hong Kong Film Archive, but I can't find it there when searching for 夢之旅. I couldn't find any coverage of her as a radio presenter, apart from sparse coverage that she won the RTHK disk jockey competition. She left show business in the 90s or 00s to become an architect, and I can't find SIGCOV of her per WP:NARCHITECT.

Editors searching for coverage that I missed, please note that there's an unrelated singer Jennifer Chan from Hong Kong at JC (singer), who debuted in 2016. There's also an unrelated American Jennifer Chan, who's been a TV presenter. Wikishovel (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Architecture, Hong Kong, and United Kingdom. Wikishovel (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albedo Space

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

Non notable; New York Times article (I read it completely) only provides general information (likely from the website or press-release, e.g.a "The company’s website makes no mention of imaging people, or the privacy issues. Even so, reconnaissance experts say regulators should wake up before its spacecraft start taking their first close-ups"). Also I found other sources to be not SIGCOV Qivatari (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google News suggest no WP:SIGCOV and the NYT article seems like a passing mention Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunchclub

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

Fails NCORP - only WP TRIVIAL and WP TRADES, no significant reliable non-trivial coverage in the secondary independent sources. WSJ only lists it among others (clearly not WP SIGCOV); Standard also lists it slightly among other apps - there is not clear deep coverage of the subject; Techcrunch - routine annoucnement; Fast Company - also WP:ORGTRIV Qivatari (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The CNBC is a reliable source and has sigcov also I found this WP:FORBES article, which is good as it is written by "former staff"
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bev (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NCORP; most of the coverage is devoted to the founder Alix Peaboy; the author was blocked for violating UPE policy Qivatari (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better Days (Robbie Seay Band album)

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

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

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

Articles about albums, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As usual, Wikipedia's approach to albums used to extend an automatic presumption of notability to any album that was recorded by a notable artist regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have a meaningful notability claim (chart success, notable music awards, a significant volume of coverage and analysis about it, etc.) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
But none of these three albums are making any notability claim above and beyond "this is an album that exists", two of the three are completely unreferenced, and the one that does have references doesn't have good ones: it's citing one review in an unreliable source, and one "Billboard chart history" that lists no actual chart positions and is present only to footnote a release date that it doesn't actually support rather than any charting claims.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more expertise in Christian music than I've got can find the right kind of sourcing to salvage them, but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an album from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spies Are Forever

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

Not notable. No significant coverage. No reliable sources. No continuance of performance. Only YouTube clips, Twitter, primary website and 2 reviews in non-notable media for initial small run. A lot of information about a very small production with very little sources. Maineartists (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Music. Maineartists (talk) 8:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Ventures

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

Low quality sourcing on the page, little else seen in good quality third party sources to show that this subject has notability outside of University of Warwick. Anything which has significance could be merged there. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the creator of the page is User:Warwickventures which would appear to have undisclosed COI issues. JMWt (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Diamond Garden Centres

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:GNG and claim to WP:NCORP is none existent. Sources are 100% primary to the garden and its partners. It may be the largest garden chain but it clearly fails notability. Piscili (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that industry pages for like (and smaller) garden centre operators do not appear to be subject to deletion discussion including British Garden Centres Notcutts & Bents Garden Centre. Outside of garden centre retail there are many other pages for retail businesses with a much lesser profile eg L&F Jones, Ugo (retailer) being a couple of examples. Asterixthegaul (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. That argument won't pass muster here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from that link “ While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. ”

and

” In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia”

This specific article is written in a similar form to other articles on Garden Centre chains within the UK. Notoriety in this industry from examination of national news, appears to derive from commercial failure. Asterixthegaul (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent. None of those have been through a deletion discussion. If you want this article kept, you need to focus on sources. We are looking for multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage as described in WP:CORPDEPTH. Are you aware of any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The relevant subject specific deletion guidelines are WP:NCORP. Per WP:SIRS we need multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage of the subject at WP:CORPDEPTH. There are no such sources in the article. Anything with depth is from the company themselves, so not independent. Other sources that mention them, e.g. in the context of a National Trust press release [28] do not contain CORPDEPTH (and that is withoout consideration of whether a press release is independent). My searches have not found anything further, and no others have been presented at AfD. This does not meet WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbhav

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

Fails the WP:NEVENTS, a particular annual event of a law college Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 sources and all are poor. Source 1 has no coverage or even passing mention about the subject. Source 2 is deadlink. Source 3 has entry and Source 4 is a deadlink. No sources on the page with significant coverage to pass notability and this page also seems like promotion of an event held by law school students in Pune India. WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A poorly sourced article about a student campus event. Searches find notices and PR infused notes about the participants "zeal and fervour", etc. In the absence of clear evidence that this particular student event is of wider notability, a redirect to Symbiosis_Law_School#Student_life where this is mentioned would seem a reasonable alternative to deletion. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Symbiosis Law School.-KH-1 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin Society

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

Fails WP:ORG. Of the 14 sources given, only 3 are not self-published by the Stalin Society or its affiliates. Of the 3 sources that are not primary sources, the Stalin Society is only mentioned in passing, as an affiliation of individuals the authors are criticising. A search on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar returns zero reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the organisation. Yue🌙 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Orange sticker (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage isn’t great but without too much searching I found this from The Independent, this Google book snippet and this from an independent (hostile) source. The article itself is well-written, neutral and discusses the society’s views by (correctly) referencing its own statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That piece by The Independent is cited in the article, but it suffers from the same issue as the book excerpt you linked: the coverage isn't in-depth. A lot of failed political candidates and local quacks would have their own articles if mere mentions sufficed. Yue🌙 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On no other platform (pardon the pun), could I imagine defending (and again!) The Stalin Society, but here goes. So the archive of the Weekly Worker (weekly newspaper of the CPGB) turns up quite an amount of material (eg Stalin Society v CPGB). The Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century p.167 has a small entry on the Society. Johann Hari had a full page, 800 word piece from 2002 in the New Statesman: "Comrades up in arms" 6 October 2002, Vol. 131 Issue 4591, p28. This 2014 piece "Void Pasts and Marginal Presents: On Nostalgia and Obsolete Futures in the Republic of Georgia" from Slavic Review has multiple mentions and discussions of the Stalin Society in Georgia. Pasess the WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the reliability and notability of some of the sources you brought up.
- The Weekly Worker is not the paper of the CPGB; it is the paper of an offshoot of an offshoot (NCP) of the CPGB, the CPGB-PCC. Those Wikipedia articles themselves lack significant coverage from reliable sources. A supermajority of the sources in both articles are from the CPGB-PCC or its sister organisations praising the CPGB-PCC.
- I am not surprised that the "Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations" contains a mention of the Stalin Society. But how is that mention significant or notable? I would argue that is not, given it is merely a brief mention.
- Admittedly a weaker rebuttal with this final point, but I would contend that, although a journalist covered the organisation in detail, there is still no obvious point of notability given in this Wikipedia article or otherwise. What has the Society done?
- Some of the previous editors of this Wikipedia article seem to believe that the British Stalin Society is the same Stalin Society in every other country. Do reliable sources make this connection? Is the Georgian and Bangladeshi Stalin Societies, for example, under the British one? Or are they merely inspired?
Yue🌙 18:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing for a Keep, please note the comments from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is basically a WP:CFORK of characters already listed in Bulbulay main Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they are WP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but do not believe one would be needed here. CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST of characters or redirect and merge to the main page if that seems feasible. (Note to "notability taggers": indicating the category (film, internet or in the present case television) puts the article on the radar of users willing to improve pages related to a given topic, whereas the "may not meet GNG" has it lost in an ocean of articles about other topics. Thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SPLITLIST says when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meet WP:NLIST. Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bulbulay: It doesn’t really need its own article; it could be merged into the parent article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Beres

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

A PROD would certainly be rejected. A WP:BEFORE search turns little to nothing. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: tentatively. The only reliable sources I identified under his YouTube name "Sambucha" is a Dot Esports piece on his involvement in the "Streamer Games" and a Tubefilter source briefly mentioning his content and listing him in the top 100 most viewed creators. If there were an extra piece or two that gave him more SIGCOV, I'd change my vote. But for now it's not looking too promising. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu University of America

AfDs for this article:

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

This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Hinduism, India, United States of America, and Florida. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Ratekreel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.

Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)

Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.

Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I get 290 hits on Newspapers.com, including the fairly substantial Mark I. Pinsky, "School of Thought: Hindu University begins journey in teaching... with a degree of karma", The Hilton Head Island Packet (July 3, 2004), p. 1-C, 3-C, and Amy Limbert, "Kuldip Gupta, 66, helped found, lead Hindu University of America", The Orlando Sentinel (February 9, 2007), p. B6. Also, "Hinduism: Studying the ancients", The Atlanta Constitution (September 28, 1996), p. G4; "Beavercreek: Online Hindu classes", Dayton Daily News (January 9, 2021), p. B3. BD2412 T 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Plus the clash between editors about it being promo (see history) makes me uneasy. The Banner talk 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a little more coverage of the game (here and here), which, while not exactly stellar, is sufficient to keep the article alongside the other sources. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Bulgaria. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worth keeping if it excludes obvious respellings. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so Soft Deletion isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Raw

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

Article fails WP:NMUSIC, there is some material online about him but none of it mentions things needed to support notability. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What? Reading Beans 08:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passed WP:MUSIC. He has released three different albums, he is a notable representative of Igbo raps with enough collaboration with other notable musicians. He also has reliable coverages for verifiability some of which are 1, 2, 3.Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ibjaja055 so the sources you provided don't support notability as per WP:NMUSIC. But there might be sources in Igbo, do you know where I might be able to find them? I'm not an expert on Igbo or Nigeria so if you could point me in the right direction I'll try to find some sources and add them in. If you think there are offline sources then we can just send this to draft until they can be added.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dr_vulpes
Premium Times	~ Looks to be independent but it's hard to tell.	Appears to be reliable after reading a few other articles	Article is 177 words and mentions that he has views on music piracy. Claims he's won awards but doesn't mention them	? Unknown
Daily Post	I'm not 100% sure but from reading some random articles it appears to be	Articles have writers and appear to be reporting properly.	Article is 125 words long and is about Mr Raw getting a shout out on Instagram	✘ No
Daily Trust	Appears to be, not 100% sure but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt	Has other articles that appear to be	Entry in the article is under his old man and is only 119 words	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 15:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Corner, Indiana

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

According to Baker, an early post office, Now just a crossroads. Not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it was just a post office. 1958 USGS maps show just a couple of buildings scattered around the area, nothing that could be presumed a community: [29]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Aerospace Quality Group

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

Nominated for deletion as all of the results from a WP:BEFORE search returned purely trivial mentions of the subject meaning that this article cannot possibly have the potential to pass GNG. This could be a good addition to a list page related to the field of aerospace engineering, however according to guidelines, this article does not fit Wikipedias mission. Thanks! Wibbit23 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Aviation, Spaceflight, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sakazaki

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

Getting this out of the way: the article is huge, but FANDOM pages are also huge, that doesn't have anything to do with a character's notability. In this case, Ryo does not appear notable, and the article only reinforces how Dan Hibiki, the character who is a parody of him, is probably notable while Ryo is not. What is not primary-sourced development information or plot summary is sourced entirely to trivial mentions or listicles that mention him alongside all other characters, only indicating KOF characters are notable as a group. I appreciate the effort to improve the article but Boneless Pizza was likely correct to redirect it in 2023. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure it in reception to make sure it had a big impact not only in game journalists discussing him on his own in different countries. Also real people. There are cases of people reacting to his marketing, developers inspired by his story or involving him or simply how important was him being a guest character in Fatal Fury Special also inspired the creation of the fighting game franchise KOF.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, I added several new articles focused around him just now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many articles on SNK characters (List of The King of Fighters characters), where I would struggle with notability. The recent additions don't show a significant change in notability. I think covering the character in an article together with SNK's other character would be more useful. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment After talking with other users, I tried cleaning up the article by removing reviews and pointless revisions. Most of thecurrent articles are primarily focused on the characters and games narrative with the exception of his Mr. Karate alterego which is more rare so I used few previews for that. Furthermore, I have just found that the internet meme was far more popular worldwide and expanded on it. I also made sure to keep the only important Fatal Fury parts as Ryo's inclusion in FFSpecial is famous for inspiring the KOF franchise as well as guest characters. Same with his role in kof as I only placed articles focused on him and or team. I also changed the commentary of Dan Hibiki and how the company reacted to Dan's character by creating another parody character.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for now. There's definitely some potential for discussion regarding Ryo here, and I do feel there is some ground where establishing him helps Dan's article. But many of the sources I've looked through here just aren't saying anything or really next to anything and are mostly reviews. While I recognize the monumental effort I feel it needs a far tighter scope and a near nuke to boil down what's actually said about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against any removal of content but I think the current article passes the rule of best three:
The internet meme that has been so popular that has been part of an official mobile game.
Ryo is the first guest character in gaming history, inspiring The King of Fighters '94.
Dan Hibiki.

There is also all those other articles that aren't focused about gameplay or story, but critcize it like how Ryo's age makes no sense in Fatal Fury Special, his ridiculously unfiting built appearance from KOFXV, his rivalry appeal with Geese from XIV, etc. I agree content can be removed but deletion seems sudden.Tintor2 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what three sources do you feel hold up the article? It's not just concepts, but the sources themselves. So many of the things here don't even mention the character much or in passing, and those that do aren't saying really much at all. While I'm not saying there isn't something here, it's hard to see that in light of all this. So if you had to start from zero, what fistful of sources would you use as examples of it being notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge isn't going to work - this is enormous. (311kb!) If it's to be a redirect, please specify where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Comment''' I rearranged the reception and removed most articles that are useless. There is only one review in a comparison the character has with Street Fighter in reception. The only paragraph that abuses a bit retrospectives is the small one of the middleaged persona. The Fatal Fury and KOF feature articles dedicated to the character they criticize his presentation, constant similarities with Ryu from Street Fighter, moves or role in the series. Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that most of the notability is around Dan Hibiki and the feud between game studios. There is some borderline coverage for the character outside that. I am torn because it feels mostly like context for why the character became the subject of the more notable parody in Dan. But I could be convinced to keep the page to provide a richer context of this as a separate character. Either way, this article needs a serious clean-up due to weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel the improvements made by Tintor2 justifies this to be kept. Does it need clean up? Sure, but it's not bad enough for a merge, or a TNT, for that matter. MoonJet (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tintor2: Can you show me the three strongest sources in your opinion? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to clean up the article it would be the bike meme, how his story inspired a Game designer to join SNK, and iconic was he being the first crossover character for Fatal Fury Special. There is also Capcom's response Tintor2 (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is, can you show me the three links that demonstrate the subject's notability the best - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000311.000028651.html

https://blog.playstation.com/2017/08/29/art-of-fighting-anthology-hits-ps4-today-the-origins-of-an-snk-classic/

https://www.gamesradar.com/exploring-the-legacy-of-fatal-fury-the-legendary-fighting-game-series-thats-returning-after-23-years/

https://www.4gamer.net/games/334/G033456/20190723069/ Tintor2 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it kept. But. PRTimes = press release reprint, so fails requirement for being independent (and even then what I see there would fail SIGCOV, those are just some passing mentions in list). Blog = well, blogs are not reliable. gamesradar - one paragraph, very borderline SIGCOV, just a comment on how his apperance was kept a secret as a marketing gimmick for one game at some point. The last source translates very badly, seems like some rambling gibberish - how is this reliable and SIGCOV? I am sorry, I want to see this kept, but those are not three best sources, they seem like three worst sources. Or if they are three best, I am sorry, but this is a trainwreck that I'll have to pile on and vote delete (well, redirect>delete). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead following user's comments and trimmed the reception into the most important parts. I made paragraphs about how he was received in Art of Fighting , the meme, the cultural impact he has in Fatal Fury and gaming in general, and one paragraph solely focused on KOF and Mr. Karate's alter ego.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2 Can you show here at least two sources that meet RS and SIGCOV and cover those topics? Who talks about his cultural impact, for exmaple? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i already did above. If you want a scholar we have https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Ryo+Sakazaki+snk&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1728298977936&u=%23p%3DkqAvHc1XJycJ Tintor2 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY for the improvements made. I'm AGF'ing a bit, as so many of the sources are non-English. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

CiberCuba

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

I originally G11'd this article. In addition to maintaining that this is pure advertising, I have been unable to find significant coverage of this media outlet. Source assessment:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
[30]	NYT	NYT	brief mention about the site being made inaccessible in Cuba
[31]	based on outlet's reporting	BBC	crediting the outlet for reporting on the name of a person
[32]		deprecated; see WP:MARTI
[33]	USA Today	USA Today	does not mention the outlet
[34]	based on the outlet's reporting	NYT	crediting outlet with reporting on transport of dolphins
[35]	direct quotation of the outlet	BBC	brief mention in article about an ostrich meme
[36]	article subject's site
[37]	article subject's site
[38]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	Washington Post	brief quotations from the outlet
[39]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	France 24	brief quotations from the outlet
[40]	list of Marco Rubio's articles on outlet's website
[41]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Telemundo
[42]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Univision
[43]	article subject's site
[44]	English translation of SembraMedia article published by the Global Investigative Journalism Network	SembraMedia appears to be an advocacy organization and it's not clear how independent they are from funders.	borderline
[45]	Pulitzer Center		does not mention the outlet
[46]	News Whip	appears to be reliable	briefly mentions how many news interactions it has had
[47]	article subject's site
[48]	Cubadebate.cu	first image in the article looks like a conspiracy theory web	brief mention in a quote from another source
[49]	Fidel Castro fansite	Fidel Castro fansite

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Cuba. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article has a promotional tone and structure. However, in reviewing the sources during New Page Review, I considered the Radio Marti story and the Global Investigative Journalism Network story to constitute SIGCOV, which is why I removed the notability tag. However, I did not realize that RSN had deprecated Radio Marti a couple months ago, which would obviously make this ineligible to contribute to GNG. As a result, I won't object to deletion here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 @Oaktree b@Voorts If Radio Martí was deprecated a few months ago, but the source you're referring to predates the deprecation, it doesn't necessarily mean that all articles from Radio Martí should automatically be deprecated? or bold yes? 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's coverage here [50] and here [51], but it's mostly just briefly discussing the site. I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment voorts, Dclemens1971, Oaktree b - if Radio Marti was deprecated a few months ago, but the source is older, does that mean all the articles from that Radio should be deprecated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Deprecation applies to the source no matter when it was written unless otherwise stated, not just after the date of depracation. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you looking at exactly on Radio Marti? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP editor is referring to the fact that the Radio Marti article cited here pre-dates its deprecation. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was only depreciated as a source in April 2024 [52]. I would look for better sources if you have them; we could consider articles from before April 2024, but it wouldn't be the best choice. Meaning, we can use them, but in addition to other, better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was deprecated in May when I closed the RfC deprecating it. The deprecation was not limited to May 2024 forward and my understanding is that deprecation is retroactive/applies to any of the source's articles unless otherwise stated (for example, the New York Post deprecation is limited to a particular time period), so we can't consider any articles from the source. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply for the fact that I can't find extensive coverage about this news source. I've found a few book references, but those are rather limited. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts The article in Pullitzer Center clearly defines the source as CiberCuba, there is a link to the history in Spanish in Cibercuba and the Cibercuba logo is displayed prominently in the headline. Reference [16] [53]https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/anguish-and-heartache-over-2015-building-collapse-havana-spanish

In this article from IWPR: [54]https://iwpr.net/global-voices/cubas-internet-blocked-pages-and-chinese-tech also mentioned CiberCuba as well as others.

This study from USENIX, mentions CiberCuba as one of sites censored in Cuba: [55]https://www.usenix.org/system/files/usenixsecurity24-ablove.pdf

The State Department, in its 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom in Cuba cites CiberCuba, in the Section III, Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom

The US Embassy in Cuba cites CiberCuba (twice) in its report 2020: Informe de los Derechos Humanos – Cuba: [56]https://cu.usembassy.gov/es/embassy/official-reports/hrr-2020/

There are more references, but I do not know if this is the right place to send this. Lockincuba (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about whether CiberCuba should have its own Wikipedia article under the guideline for companies. Specifically, this discussion is about whether there has been in-depth coverage of CiberCuba in independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Merely being cited by another source of briefly mentioned by that source does not qualify.

I see that this is your first post on Wikipedia. How did you learn about this discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this "delete" dicussion in the top of Cibercuba wikipedia page.

I appreciate your answer with a link to "Notability", I see your point.

My answer were more in the sense to complete the table that is posted above in this disscussion, and the issues cited there.

I do not know if there are in depth articles about Cibercuba. I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia.

I know this is not a typical source but you could see how Cibercuba compares to other media: [57]https://www.similarweb.com/es/website/cibercuba.com/competitors/

Sorry if it is not what you were asking. Lockincuba (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this: [58]https://gijn.org/stories/14-independent-news-sites-changing-cuban-journalism/ , it is not just about Cibercuba, but it provides some information about them. Lockincuba (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, that a topic has received in depth coverage. Being cited by Wikipedia or other sources does not establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is really interesting this Notability thing. I just found this guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, which give us a slighty different approach to a news site like Cibercuba and specificcally address the issue at the core of this discussion, and I quote:

"Newspapers can have a significant impact on the areas they serve, and in representing those areas to the wider world. Because its impact may be felt over a long period of time, a newspaper may be very significant, without attracting the kind of general review in other publications that would most handily fulfill Wikipedia's general notability guideline.... Additionally, while newspapers and magazines may review and critique other works of non-fiction (books, documentaries, scholarly works) it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms."

Although there are some points to consideer that are not available about Cibercuba, being and independent (censored) organization in Cuba, there are specific points that are relevant to them, among them:

- It is referred to in one or more strong reliable sources as the newspaper of record for a certain locale, in the reputational (i.e., subjective) sense.

- Its content is or has been frequently syndicated or republished in other reliable sources

- Its articles are repeatedly cited (or its scoops frequently credited) by other reliable sources

In any case I also found some articles in other media that gives specific coveraga to issues where Cibercuba team were the actual news:

[59]https://www.14ymedio.com/internacional/mariela-castro-reporteros-conferencia-espana_1_1052659.html

[60]https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/america-latina/cuba-es/article222703500.html

[61]https://cpj.org/2020/01/cuban-reporter-iliana-hernandez-charged-with-illeg/

[62]https://www.14ymedio.com/cuba/ayuda-matthew-cuba-baracoa-damnificados_1_1060447.html

[63]https://www.diariolasamericas.com/cultura/artistas-celebran-aniversario-cibercubaen-miami-n4126518

[64]https://www.americateve.com/exitosos-emprendedores-cubanos-quieren-abrir-oficinas-cuba-n885575

I even found a Master thesis in an Spain university that it is focused in compare Cibercuba and Cubadebate (one official/goverment funded news organization):

Communication of risk and crisis in the digital press from the informative treatment: A study of the fire in the largest fuel depot in Cuba in the Cubadebate and Cibercuba media

[65]https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/155643/TFMCyC_comunicacionderiesgo.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Hope this will help the "case" of Cibercuba deserving a place in the Wikipedia. I truly believe it belong here.

Thanks Lockincuba (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the sources you shared establish notability under the notability guideline for corporations. The WikiProject Newspapers essay on notability that you cited has not gained consensus in the community. here is my assessment of the new sources:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
[66]	14ymedio	It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website		article is about the publication's staff being kicked out of an event
[67]	El Nuevo Herald			article is about the publication's staff being kicked out of an event
[68]	Committee to Protect Journalists statement advocating for dropping charges against CiberCuba reporter	advocacy organization
[69]	14ymedio post that clearly takes a side on a political issue and is aligned with CiberCuba	It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website	brief mention about Change.org petition and censorship
[70]	Diario Las Américas article that appears to largely rely upon interviews/information obtained from CiberCuba journalists			article is about the publication's third birthday event
[71]	América TeVé article that recounts a panel talk where a CiberCuba editor spoke
[72]		master's theses are not reliable sources

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Even if there is not consensus the page was keep there, linked and it express an issue common to all news organizacions: "it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms, therefore I believe should be taken into account.

I found some precense of CiberCuba in TV with interviews:

- Interview of the TV program of America Teve dedicated in exclusive to some espionage documents revealed by Cibercuba, with two of their journalists: [73]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mf6xo3z9iI

- Another interview of a Cibercuba journalist about corruption in a Cuban medical organization: [74]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzzadyr5l8&t=49s

I found some coverage in the officialist media of the cuban regime to criticize Cibercuba work. There are articles in .cu, domains (which are all official cuban organizations), tryong to discredit Cibercuba work. Are those critics notable coverage?

I tried to replicate your tablewith the references that were not included, but it did not work:

| GIJN || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| IWPR || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| Usenix || Yes || No || No || ? || ?

|-

| U.S. Department of State || Yes || Yes|| No || ? || ?

|-

| The US Embassy in Cuba || Yes || Yes || No || ? || ?

|} Lockincuba (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms This is the opinion of some people in the WikiProject that wrote that essay, and it's an opinion that I happen to disagree with. Notable newspapers are regularly written about in nonfiction books, magazines, other newspapers, etc. Relying on another newspaper's reporting or interviewing its journalists about a story or reporting on a story that the outlet broke are not, however, secondary, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the US embassy, the Cuban government, and official Cuban media/outlets loyal to the Cuban state are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact checking that have editorial guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage and if Ecured exists, it is an unreliable encyclopedia because this alternative and very relevant dissident media cannot exist in being supervisors of the Cuban dictatorship. My position is to maintain. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A news web site with millions monthly pageviews Similarweb, a verified Facebook page with 3.5 million followers CiberCuba FB page, with 260K indexed pages in Google, more that 10 years producing news, where THE two US presidential candidates where interviewed in 2020 Donald Trump interview, Joe Biden interview, as well as US senantors, mayors and other tp level politicians, with their news cited by the thousands in international media, including NY Times, BBC, France 24, Washignton Post, Telemundo and many others (see links above), with hundreds of citations in Wikipedia (where coincidentally, some pages were created in great part based on references from CiberCuba), with citations in the US state department and other .GOV sites its by all standards Notable. As Dan Rather said: “The best journalists are not part of the story; they are observers who gather facts and relay them.”.

Lockincuba (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but only one firm !vote for deletion so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deir Alla SC

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

A club in the fourth division, which places it in a non-professional league. The article is significantly lacking in secondary sources, aside from those pertaining to statistics and standard coverage. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete for the reasons outlined in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To provide some context, I plan on creating articles for Jordanian clubs that have participated in the Jordanian Second Division League, to which Deir Alla have in 2022. I set this as my limit, given that third-tier clubs and above participate in the Jordan FA Cup and there are no actively fourth-tier teams that participate in the national cup, unlike in some other countries. I don't plan on creating articles of teams that have only played in the fourth tier (i.e. the Jordanian Third Division League), as they are not notable enough to be discussed as an article.

As for the lack of "secondary sources", the vast majority of sources from that article comes from news articles that talk about the club. Zalata42 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Properly referenced to passes in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me - including if anyone can translate the ones currently on the article. Giant Snowman 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Raghanti

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

Biological anthropologist with an h-factor of 34 and no major awards, created on Oct 2 by a user with (currently) 30 edits. Page is a badly written stub without much information. She has a good career, but I am not convinced she is notable as yet. Page was tagged for notability by User:Ipigott on Oct 3 and I draftified it on Oct 4. Tags removed and page moved to mainspace on Oct 7; claim by original author that she is notable, with no further explanation, attempt to meet any of WP:NPROF or reach concensus. Only possible notability claim is as a co-author of an Ig-nobel prize paper. I am not sure if we consider that enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brief ping of @Ipigott to ensure they get a notice. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability seems possible. Her CV lists multiple news stories (last 2 pages) that might prove notability. Two I pulled out quickly: Science article covering her research and written summary from an audio/radio interview on public radio. She's also an elected fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science and has an article explaining why she was elected to AAAS on EurekAlert but originally posted on Kent University's site, but not self written. She is an Ig Nobel Prize Winner and last author usually conveys a larger part in the paper (although she isn't the corresponding author).

Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Fellow of the AAAS is enough for WP:PROF#C3, her citations are at least enough to make a case for #C1, the IgNobel may not be a major award but it carries a lot of publicity, and she's had a fair amount of other publicity for her work: along with the sources listed above, here are a couple more in Smithsonian and Scientific American. Bad nomination and bad draftification, as many of these signs and sources for notability were already present in the draftified version. It was very stubby but not badly sourced for what it was. You'll be lucky if the article author persists in contributing here rather than getting bitten by your bad nomination piled onto a bad draftification and leaving the project forever. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree about Fellow of AAAS, that is not one that should ever count towards #C3. They elect ~500 per year from among people who have been paying dues. I also strongly disagree about her citations, by comparison to others in her field they are low - I checked, did you? She is in a medium citation field, and most of her well cited papers have more than 5 authors (sometimes far more) with her somewhere in the middle.

If you feel the Ignobel is major, then OK, that is your opinion but I do not particularly considering the topic. Some of the Ignobel papers are real science, some are a joke and not WP:Sustained. This one is a joke. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N. B., you may not know that composites where one of the components is ice is a high school/intro MSE experiment, e.g. Boeing link. (We used to do this as a lab demonstration in the intro to ceramics MSE class.) If you look at the Ignobel paper they say the knife melted, that should have been caught by a referee. The paper has decent news coverage (27) but only 14 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AAAS fellow meets criteria #3 of WP:PROF. The AAAS names <0.4% of each section of the society as a fellow, which meets the "highly selective" criteria described in WP:PROF. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality criterion

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

Lack of notability. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Voting criteria and the "Compliance of selected single-winner methods" table in Comparison of voting rules. I found two more sources that mention the criterion. [75] p 58. Also mentioned [76] p 99. It seems like it may not meet WP:GNG, but the content of the article would be helpful there. McYeee (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firestorm enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, like "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Firestorm in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and send any redirects to that page to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced list, most entries of which are minor, non-notable characters. Even most of the blue links are just redirects to unsourced entries in other character lists. No objection against actually adding sourced information to the Firestorm (character) article regarding notable, reoccurring adversaries such as Killer Frost, but merging would not be appropriate due the complete lack of sources here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hawkman enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, like "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hawkman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and send any redirects to that page to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (DC Comics)

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

WP:BEFORE shows some very minor coverage that does not provide more than story details or existence. This does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this does not pass GNG and I don't see a need to redirect anywhere. Limbo is too generic a place. Rhino131 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article currently contains one sentence of sourced commentary, and searches are not providing any other significant coverage. Outside of plot summaries, there is really nothing but brief mentions stating what the concept is. Rorshacma (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Huaguo

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

WP:BEFORE shows that this is barely mentioned in reliable sources which is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There may be other elements of the novel that could be notable but this is a very minor element. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only on the 53rd page of Google Scholar results for the pinyin version of the article subject that you start academic papers without the pinyin in the title. Almost all of them are inaccessible to me, but from what is accessible, it seems there is a lot of in-depth research. For example, this Korean paper [77][78] is a 30+ page article analyzing the location from a Buddhist perspective and appears in an accredited journal indexed by the Korean Studies Information Service System and DBpia, both of which are used by western research libraries (e.g. [79] [80] from the University of Toronto). Can you explain why your BEFORE research led you to conclude that literally 100s of Chinese scholarly articles with the subject in the title actually barely mention the subject? Although the article would obviously be improved by citations, WP:NEXIST seems to obviously apply here. Perhaps reaching out to editors who are more familiar with and have access to Chinese-language sources would be helpful (e.g. WP:CHINA) instead of deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that talk about the setting, but not this singular setting. The Flaming Mountains are one such example of a notable article, or even the identically named Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu) that we don't want to confuse this mountain with. I have not seen evidence that this is notable as a singular and distinct article. Jontesta (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally provided an example of an article that is about the fictional setting. The title of the Korean article is "A Buddhist reading about Mountain of Flowers and Fruits(花果山) in Journey to the West(西遊記)". That is obviously not about any real life location.

Filtering the results to also include "西遊記" ("Journey to the West") allows us to home in on again, multiple pages of articles about the fictional mountain. For example: "汤克勤. "自由家园的建构与超越——《西游记》“花果山” 新解." 广州大学学报: 社会科学版 10, no. 3 (2011): 60-65. (via Google Translate: Tang Keqin. "The Construction and Transcendence of a Free Homeland: A New Interpretation of "Mount Huaguo" in Journey to the West." Journal of Guangzhou University: Social Sciences Edition 10, no. 3 (2011): 60-65.) and 许兆康. "试析《西游记》之花果山的真实地点." 神州民俗 4 (2011): 150-153. (via Google Translate: Xu Zhaokang. "An Analysis of the Real Location of the Flower-Fruit Mountain in Journey to the West." Chinese Folklore 4 (2011): 150-153) both appear to be focused on the fictional mountain foremost.

I'm not familiar enough with the research, but if the Huaguo in Jiangsu has academic consensus for being the inspiration for the literary version, then perhaps a merger is warranted as an alternative to deletion. At the very least, there appear to be many academic articles describing how Lianyungang has used the connection for tourism, though some articles seem to propose alternate locations. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of those sources discuss Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu), the real location. I still don't see how this interpretation of it justifies a second alternative article. (The Korean article doesn't focus on the right mountain.) I can see the good faith in discussing an WP:ATD like merge, but there would be very little to keep since this article is totally without sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided prima facie proof that at least three scholarly articles are primarily focused around the fictional mountain, which is usually enough to meet WP:GNG. I do not have access to these articles/do not read Korean, but given the very high amount of Google Scholar hits for both the mountain and the work, it seems very likely that more academic work on the matter exists.

"The Korean article doesn't focus on the right mountain" Not sure what you're talking about here. The title of the Korean article is "A Buddhist reading about Mountain of Flowers and Fruits(花果山) in Journey to the West(西遊記)". As far as I know, there is only one Huaguoshan in the book. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Magicians characters

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

The article is mostly unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE did not indicate WP:SIGCOV but I could understand a redirect to The Magicians (American TV series). Jontesta (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found two further relevant secondary sources: On The Magicians, knowing the system is rigged to crush you is part of becoming an adult, Apocalypse TV, p. 149-163. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harper's Island characters

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

Article has no reliable sources and WP:BEFORE did not find WP:SIGCOV. I could contemplate a redirect to Harper's Island as an WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Deipnosophistae

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

WP:BEFORE finds that most of these are barely mentioned. Article describes itself as an "index" and "minor", making it difficult to obtain WP:SIGCOV. I would consider a redirect to Deipnosophistae and thought it was best to discuss WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the structure of the Deipnosophistae and the existence of Category:Lists of minor fictional characters, the page deserves to be preserved. It can be also enlarged in order to obtain Wikipedia:SIGCOV. The alternative is to add the content to the page of the Deipnosophistae. Digitalphilologist (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument to merge presented as a deletion discussion: the list is clearly relevant to the Deipnosophistae, and there is nothing wrong about treating it; the question is whether it should be a stand-alone list or part of the main article. Since the main article isn't that long, it seems perfectly feasible to merge this list there, without losing any of its contents—although perhaps it could be reformatted to make it take up less space (and if not, it's still better preserved there than deleted). If more content or discussion in secondary sources can be added, the list can remain separate, or be split off again at a later time. P Aculeius (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cut down to main page. The characters seem an important aspect, and the main article is not long. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Beattie

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

Found no news articles on her. Only reliable mentions online are passing mentions from books about her role in the boy in the striped pajamas. Only sources this article had beforehand were Twitter and LinkedIn. Roasted (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Roasted (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the article fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO and GNG The sources are too poor Isha Sattar (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dewair (1606)

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

This article is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mughal conquest of Mewar per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benares brass

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

"Benares brass" isn't a thing; it's just brass items made/sold in Varanasi. Just like there isn't a page for "Benares trinkets", there doesn't need to be one for Benares brass. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contested PROD (I opposed it).

I would agree that 'Benares brass' isn't a thing. At least, not in the metallurgical sense, as a particular brass alloy. I may be wrong - place-specific alloys do sometimes turn up, owing to oddities of local material supply.

But I'm not convinced that 'brass and brasswork of Benares' isn't a thing, just based on the sources already attached to the article. Is brass manufacture a significant and distinctive industry specific to Benares? Now that's certainly a thing, and there are many such locations where particular forms of metalworking are both distinct (the place is significant to the craft of brassworking) and locally economically important (brass working is significant to the place). On my own doorstep, an article on 17th to 19th century brassworking around Bristol and the Avon valley would be very welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Varanasi: Borderline notable at best, and would be much more suitable as part of the city's article per WP:NOPAGE, similar to how Moradabad does not have a separate page for its highly recognized brass industry. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear more opinions and also feedback on the Merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found these sources on Google Books with somewhat good coverage of it [81] [82] [83] Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Rajput wars

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

This article is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like so many Maratha/Mughal articles recently, a hopeless mix of WP:SYNTH, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no need to keep this sock magnet as the material is already covered. A hard delete is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 8 October 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 delete‎ per G7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algarvian Portuguese

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

Attempted draftification, though perhaps the moving back into mainspace was unintended. I don't know what the notability standards for would be for a dialect, but it's actually been over an hour, no sources have been added, and the only source I could find on Google that was referring to the Algarvian dialect, and not Algarvian craft beer or the resilience of Algarvian culture was a blog post that was posted to a couple of websites. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The republication in mainspace was, indeed, unintended. --I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Ganguly

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

I propose the deletion of this article as it fails to meet encyclopaedic standards. It contains numerous WP:NPOV violations and lacks reliable sources to support many of its claims. The content remains heavily influenced by original research and includes exaggerated statements about the individual’s achievements. Over the past two years, two users, one likely the subject herself, have edited the article. Earlier versions relied predominantly on interviews provided to non-reputable media outlets (not sure what the language is?), further indicating original research. The awards section seems designed to artificially enhance the subject's credentials, yet most of the claims cannot be independently verified, whilst the majority of the (notable) awards have been awarded for team effort. This includes journalistic pieces in which she has either contributed or claimed to have contributed, none of which can be definitively corroborated. Some of those are not reliable, others are mere contributions. As a result, the article is heavily based on unverified original research, and those involved in its editing may be breaching WP:COI. It’s also worth noting that the articles presented as the author’s original work, particularly on Gaza, are again contributions rather than pieces they’ve led. This raises questions about their WP: Notability. Previously, the language used in the article was highly self-promotional, with phrases like "exposed" and "uncovered," attributing investigative achievements to them that aren’t truly theirs. This one fails WP:SIGCOV. Finally, be mindful of potential input in this nomination from the subject and their associates. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is currently engaged in an online dispute and their page is being heavily edited, with this deletion request coming from an account who is politically motivated to try to delete the page. The subject clearly passes WP: Notability, and if there are issues with the page they should be improved, rather than the page being deleted. This deletion request looks vexatious to me, and part of a dispute about the journalist's work which is currently taking place on Twitter/X.--Jwslubbock (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual is journalist John Lubbock, who is closely connected to Manisha Ganguly and has a proven history of editing the page. John, could you please publicly confirm that you have no relation to Manisha Ganguly and that your contributions are not linked to WP:COI? Thanks. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Journalism, India, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here is the state of the entry before the nomination, an WP:SPA, cut a third of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantial WP:COI. The image added by user Fml657 at 11:21, 15 April 2022 says "Added image taken by me", yet on this website ( https://camri.ac.uk/blog/2021/04/13/manisha-ganguly-named-on-the-forbes-30-under-30-list-for-media-and-marketing-in-europe/) that same image says "Image provided by Manisha Ganguly". This shows that user Fml657 who has done the bulk of the contributions to the article is the subject of the article, indicating conflict of interest editing.
Likewise, the other major contributor to the page, Jwslubbock, is credited as the photographer (see filename/URL) on (https://blog.westminster.ac.uk/graduateschoolfestival/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2022/03/Manisha-Ganguly-photo-credit-John-Lubbock-150x150.jpg), suggesting that a close connection is editing the page, again showing conflict of interest editing. Schwebebahn (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Schwebebahn (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The claim "user Fml657... is the subject of the article" is, based on the above, entirely without foundation, and illogical. The quite is ""Image provided by Manisha Ganguly", not "Image taken by Manisha Ganguly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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