Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 02	November 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rim Kwang-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea (I originally voted delete but support the redirect proposed by other users) as the only "references" in the articles are passing mentions in a squad list "X, Y, Z ... and him were selected for the team" - not meeting the WP:SIGCOV requirement of WP:BIO, and inclusion in automated soccer player databases with limited biographical information (name, age, matches played). Couldn't find much more than this with searches both in English and Korean. Molecular Pilot 00:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. - Lâm (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As above. Svartner (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kero

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

I really sympathise with the topic of the article, but there is no coverage about him beyond him being stranded in Juba, which is mentioned in one source (not even crossing into WP:BLP1E territory). Nothing to meet WP:N or WP:SINGER at all! FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United Nations Mission in South Sudan thought he is notable enough to make a video about him for International Day of Peace 2020 - see https://media.un.org/avlibrary/en/asset/d255/d2558965. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:SINGER for criteria for notability for singers,e.g., Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Your link does not establish any of that. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. It seems to me that the UN link along with the one already in the article (which, incidentally, also has a follow up here) meet those requirements exactly. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sudan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Dorsetonian. Definitely borderline. Noah ^💬 02:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibhasthali

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

Non notable school, Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent, reliable sources establishing notability, as it primarily consists of promotional content about the institution without substantial coverage in reputable secondary sources. --Moarnighar (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted above, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about businesses and even educational institutions in India must be better than two articles in a local media and their own website. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints#Reconsolidation efforts since 2022. asilvering (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating since the last discussion didn't attract much participation. There is no significant coverage at all of the subject. No SNGs apply. Notability is not inherited from family members. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Latter Day Saints, and Arizona. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he’s an heir presumptive to a sect of a sect, with heresies within heresies. The coverage is speculative at best. We are not a place for propaganda. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to him being mentioned in numerous News articles from the likes of Fox News, The Salt Lake Tribune. BBC News etc. as being the current leader of a controversial church/cult. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented this last time but have yet to provide any examples of significant coverage about the subject. Being mentioned in numerous News articles (emphasis mine) does not indicate notability. C F A 💬 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 27 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!} 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints#Reconsolidation efforts since 2022 where he's mentioned. WP:ANYBIO not satisfied. Nothing substantial about the subject found in sources - only mentions, which taken together do not constitute sufficient coverage for WP:BASIC. Rupples (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the articles creator, I think this sounds like a logical idea, I've added a short sentence to mention his location in North Dakota, and I think redirecting here is the best course of action. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. C F A 💬 14:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jostin Francis

AfDs for this article:

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

Recommending this article for deletion. The person has no particular wiki worthy notability. He is a psychiatrist.

The page mentions that - "Known for Various presentations public speeches and debates done for Kerala Freethinkers Forum and many other science groups of Kerala". This isn't something that qualifies as notability. Freethinkers itself isn't particularly notable on its own. And being a member of it isn't any remarkable achievement.

And has received an award named Media Special Appreciation Award which is of no particular value whatsoever. Every professional would  have received some form of award in their career.

The person was in news for trying to abuse a female patient https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/02/08/psychiatrist-wayanad-medical-college-student-sexual-abuse-suspended.html

Also see the External Links section of the wiki page. They link to his FB page, Business Contact page and Personal blog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostin_Francis#External_links

This article doesn't belong in wiki. This definitely has the look of a self promo article.

Bobgali (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E for the sex scandal. No other notability. This BLP appears to be an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "widely acknowledged" writings have left no trace in GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources for the subject consist primarily of promotional articles offering suggestions, tips, and recommendations on medical well-being. Additionally, there is a verifiable and reliable source related to a sexual offense case. However, beyond that, the subject lacks significant notability, thereby failing to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't curate articles on subjects who are only notable for a single event, especially insignificant events. Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Award is insignificant, also fails WP:NWRITER or WP:NPROF. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Disruptive editing by the highly suspicious account who did not properly filled the nomination.(non-admin closure) Moarnighar (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Englishdom (online school)

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

Hey. This page is direct advertising. That violates policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andeswhams (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Belonia Bulge

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

The "Battles of Belonia Bulge" article has faced multiple issues since May, as it does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Specifically, the article provides insufficient Doomguy427 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: It does have notability and good sources. At most it can be draftified. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The sources appears to have quite a handful of information. Draftify for further expansion and improvements. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'Mario Legend

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and definitely WP:GNG. Mentions that verify his work but no significant coverage. Most references are coming from a single publication in a WP:BEFORE search which is a tabloid without any mention of editorial oversight. CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. CNMall41 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, Baqi:) (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources fall short of WP:GNG, and no criterion of WP:NMUSIC appears to apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Legislative Competence Order. Star Mississippi 22:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007

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

There are no secondary sources on the for this page. There are no secondary sources on the specific subject of this page, as far as I can see. There is a page on Legislative Competence Order, which I think would provide a good redirect destination. SqrtLog (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I see no reason to remove it? There is useful content here. I will go look for some secondary sourcing and coverage, but as an article it sticks very closely to the original LCO. Nothing is lost by leaving it. Flatthew (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have been reading about the order. It appears it essentially governed Conduct in National Assembly elections between 2007 and 2020. That is quite clearly significant enough to be retained. I do not know how whoever wrote this page managed to downplay it's significance as substantially as they did, but I'm working on resolving that now. Flatthew (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order: Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, this should be covered in the Legislative Competence Order article, which is currently a stub. Each new LCO doesn't need its own article, and this can be covered with due weight in the target article. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If @Flatthew can show that this is independently notable and there's so much information that a separate article is needed, I'll change my !vote, but I couldn't find all that much in-depth coverage about the 2007 order in particular. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I can't find much beyond mention of how it has been amended since. I think it's clear it has to be merged with something if it is to be retained. I think the issue is the things it would have to be merged with don't seem to have their own distinct articles either. I think it would be a shame for it to disappear, which is essentially what merging into the LCO page seems to do, given they just go into a table with no information about each order. Functionally merging is deletion here, but that might have to be the way. Flatthew (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be merged to the table; new sections can be added for each sorta notable Order in the LCO article. The LCO article also needs a general overview/history section. If you're interested, I encourage you to work on that article; it can be brought up to much better quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has been on my list for a while to have a crack at that one, this would be a good push for it. Yeah, seems like the way to do it. Flatthew (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Welsh law, but if you end up needing a second set of eyes, feel free to ping me on LCO article talk voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 26 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!} 17:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what content here would make another article more informative or is otherwise notable enough for inclusion - it seems the order's changes are almost entirely making it consistent with or enabling changes made elsewhere. I think it would be sufficient to include the order in the LCO list (and a redirect would then be appropriate), but doesn't need its own section there. There may be merit to an article on the original 1999 LCO or the 2003 version (if it changed anything major), but I don't think they'd use anything substantial from here. I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the conduct of Welsh elections or Welsh politics generally but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that whether a returning officer for an election needs to reside in the constituency for which they are responsible isn't more of a hot button issue there than is suggested by the dearth of secondary sources. Chaste Krassley (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Legislative Competence Order (or any other appropriate article) per voorts. I don't find sufficient information for it to be a standalone article, but it could be kept nonetheless in a seperate article. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chapman (murderer)

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

The crime received some contemporaneous news coverage but I don't think it meets the lasting significance standard of WP:NEVENT. gnu 57 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. gnu 57 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Haven't done too deep of a dive yet, but searching on Google books there does seem to be coverage from reliable sources continuing with sigcov, using it as a sort of case study of internet crime. Should probably be renamed Murder of Ashleigh Hall though, since I don't see a particular reason to focus on the perp in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. But rename to Murder of Ashleigh Hall. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more comments about the sources found in the Google search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Multiple coverage by books and media. I don't have particular opinions on renaming. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's clearly a notable topic in here, whether it's framed around the crime, the perpetrator, or the victim. There's a half-page on p. 147 of this book, almost the entire p. 198 of this book, an entire chapter (11. "The Facebook Murder", comprising 10-12 pages starting p. 125) of this book, and plenty more in-depth lasting secondary coverage available from searching on Google Books and Google Scholar. Left guide (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Left guide and the existence of multiple independent reliable secondary sources, showing significant coverage. A move can be discussed after closure of this AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Zhabov

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

I just don't see any trace of notability for this Bulgarian second-tier footballer. Not now and not in the short term, making draftification undesirable in my opinion. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Keller_(designer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Keller (designer)

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

The article reads like a CV; was anonymously contributed by the same IP address in both English and German, the languages of spoken by the person the article is about; and doesn't seem to pass the notability test. Themrbeaumont (talk) 21:05, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Germany, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sourcing provded for claims made. See source assessment table. I am not finding anything else online. Moved laundry list of awards and exhibitions claims off main space --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.psfk.com/2013/09/frankfurt-auto-show-displays.html	link to empty dashboard	✘ No
https://retaildesignblog.net/2013/01/02/vodafone-flagship-store-by-kms-blackspace-cologne/	retail design blog	✘ No
https://en.red-dot.org/3340.html	Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20111012164438/http://www.audi.com/com/brand/en/experience/audi_forums0/audi_forum_ingolstadt/museum_mobile.html	no mention of Michael Keller	✘ No
http://www.contractdesign.com/contract/design/features/Interiors-Awards-201-4386.shtml	404 Not Found	? Unknown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbLRclxpA_s	YouTube video Space	✘ 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}}.

Keep - Source links were not updated. In the following are the accurate links relating to each topic mentioned, proofing the relevance of this page and the person it is about, Michael Keller:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.red-dot.org/project/a-change-in-perspective-audi-fair-stand-iaa-2013-21554	Previous source linked to an empty dashboard. This project is discussed here in great detail by an internationally renowned award, with more than 60 years of history.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://architizer.com/projects/vodafone-flagship-store/	Previous source linked to a design blog. This source is the largest database for architecture and sourcing building products.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://gomuseum.de/02773211/museum_mobile#google_vignette	Previous source did not mention Michael Keller. This source is Germany's biggest inventory of museums.	The source mentions Michael Keller directly and elaborates on the project and his work in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.plotmag.com/blog/2014/10/black-space/	Previous source linked to a Youtube video. Replaced with source that is a major newspaper	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
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}}.

Additionally, here are more links confirming the relevance of this page and the person it is about, Michael Keller:

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2015/06/01/five-questions-with-designer-michael-keller-founder-of-kms-blackspace/> <https://www.dandad.org/profiles/person/764488/michael-keller> <https://forward-festival.com/speaker/blackspace-michael-keller> <https://www.michaelkeller.com/> <https://www.red-dot.org/zh/project/kia-60974> <https://cloud.ramp.space/s/PG2KnUlYGH1x3RF#pdfviewer> <https://blackspace.com/people/michael-keller> <https://www.achangeofbrand.com/episodes/kia-with-michael-keller>

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Lou30075 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC) contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Comment I respectfully disagree that the new sources presented show notability. The articles in the new table are promotional pieces for "Blackspace" or passing mentions of Michael Keller. The fact that the links are live does not show that the subject is notable. PLOT magazine is a student publication of CCNY. Outside the table Forbes is an interview, https://www.dandad.org/profiles/person/764488/michael-keller/ is an artist statement. https://blackspace.com/people/michael-keller is the company website. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on their source assessment table, Lou30075 fundamentally misunderstands how to analyze sources. Red Dot is a primary source and a trivial mention of Keller; Architizer does not even mention Keller at all; GoMuseum.de appears to be WP:USERGENERATED and is also a trivial mention. As for PLOT, it does not appear to be a student publication as WomenArtistUpdates indicates, but its coverage of Keller is still trivial (discussion of an exhibit opening, not a review of the work). I don't see anything that contributes to WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see consensus that the issues brought up can be fixed editorially. Owen× ☎ 15:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

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

This list has been a magnet for original research and edit warring for years. The basic problem is that we don't have good sources that treat the subject as a cohesive set, because while the "X is the oldest city in Y" is an attention-grabbing headline, it's not really a topic of serious scholarly interest. Instead, the list has been cobbled together from hundreds of sources that make claims about the age of individual cities. This is problematic because these sources don't have a consistent definition of—and rarely even discuss—what counts as a "city" or what it means to be "continuously inhabited". Non-academic sources also routinely repeat dubious dates without checking where they come from or confuse e.g. a prehistoric camp site being found within or adjacent to a village with that village being "10,000 years old", especially where there's a nationalistic angle (i.e. our oldest city is oldest than our neighbours).

I suggest deletion because I don't think this list is salvageable by changing the scope or sourcing requirements and in general we have moved on from these SYNTHy collections that were common in the early days. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: nominator makes a good case, nothing much to add. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I accept the nominator's points about the drawbacks of this list, but I do think a list of oldest cities is a reasonable thing for WP to provide. While people certainly do add OR to this article (constantly), that OR is removed when the additions cannot be sourced. Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today. The fact that bad sources also exist is no grounds for refusing to cover a topic. As for definitions of terms, "city" can't really be a problem, or we wouldn't have any lists of cities, while edge cases for "continuously inhabited" can be dealt with using the "notes" section of the list.

It certainly is a lot of work to maintain this list in the face of frequent additions of inappropriate content, but that isn't a justification for deletion. Furius (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today – certainly, but these sources are not helpful, because of the consistency problems mentioned above. The definition of a city might not be an issue in lists of modern cities but in the past it is a lot hardy to define and the frequent subject of debate.[1] What we need are reliable sources that list and discuss "oldest cities" specifically per WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis that an encyclopedia should contain this kind of information. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Furius, and I can't help but feel that many of the edit warring and original research problems would disappear if the content actually matched the title. At the moment the content is for List of oldest continuously inhabited cities by region. Why does this list contain 55 cities for North America? Clearly should be organised chronologically first. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this is a worthwhile topic for an encyclopedia. I agree with Airship about the layout of the page being problematic. CarlStrokes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for, oddly enough, the very reason you think it should be deleted. Because you need to cobble together dozens and dozens of sources for any comparison, _any_ comparison has strong encyclopedic value, even if imperfect. Even if _deeply_ imperfect. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have five keep !votes but still not a single source that would count towards WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without a consistent approach to (1) what is a city and (2) how continuously inhabited is defined I don't see how this is a viable list. What we are left with is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. I also wonder to what extent the list may be inherently problematic. It omits destroyed settlements and excludes groups which tend to not have permanent settlements, giving a rather colonised view of the world. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In 2007 or 2008, I would’ve made a strong effort to save this, but this is a mess of synthesis. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject passes WP:NLIST since its members are discussed as a group in secondary, reliable sources -- namely National Geographic, ArchDaily, Conde Nast Traveler &c. Individual entries should be appropriately sourced, and I agree with the recommendations above for reorganizing chronologically rather than by continent, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is split between keep and delete. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The encyclopedic value is obvious. Frankly, I don't see how this would be any more problematic than the List of tallest people. Sure, different lists may have different pieces of information, and that may change in the future, but that is just the nature of geographically and historically dispersed information. BD2412 T 19:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many attempts have been made to make sense out of this article for the last few years but all of them have been unsuccessful. The criteria for this list is itself problematic. Nxcrypto Message 03:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to remind participants that we're not debating whether to keep the current content of the page, but whether a list that meets WP:NLIST can be written for this subject. I see some agreement that the list needs to be resorted, and possibly trimmed down significantly. Editors are welcome to do that while the AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Furius, AlessandroTiandelli333, Dclemens1971 et al. Frankly astonishing that such a page is listed for deletion. Finding good sources is not easy? There is edit warring? This has to do with editing, not deletion. Scholarly sources for individual entries can be found (see [2] for the most obvious search). --cyclopia ^speak! 10:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly pass WP:NLIST per WP:LISTPURP, it is a good informational list but yeah it is in bad shape but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwa Saray Ghar

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

The only information I can find for this cites this article, and there doesn't seem to be any RS for this in an English search or, as far as I can tell, Pashto. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the only source in the Pashto Wikipedia's entry is the English Wikipedia and that searching "Dwa Saray Ghar" in both English and Pashto on Google Search and Google Books turns up few if any results does not give me much hope in its notability. Lazman321 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources. Only user-generated content found. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 16:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreliable source. Can't find it after googling. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Fresh

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

I can't find any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, not even in spanish

the topic of the article seems not to comply with WP:SINGER, not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to comply with WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I haven't done a full search yet but this staff written bio on AllMusic here is a reliable source that confirms he has a Gold record and multiple album releases on Sony Music. That passes criteria 3 and 5 of WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 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) 11:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it passes criteria 3 and 5, it should be kept. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; verifiably meets WP:NMUSIC per Atlantic306. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Kjetland

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

Low-level college football player (NAIA) with no indication of notability. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and South Dakota. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The cited refs aren't SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. A similar article on one of Kjetland's teammates, Sam Sather, should likely also be deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator withdrew Mach61 13:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Chamber Music Northwest

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

Keep per WP:HEY ~~Fails WP:NORG and it's way too hyper-local to be considered of beyond local relevance for more lenient notability guidelines under NONPROFIT SNG.~~ Graywalls (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: found coverage of a festival of their's at American Record Guide. Mach61 14:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. I quickly and easily found lots of reliable secondary coverage via Google News. More article expansion is needed, but I've added sources (including The New York Times and book mentions) based on the current text, as well as the infobox and logo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with kudos to Another Believer for improving this article and WP:HEY effort with reviews in NYT and Northwest Asian Weekly. In addition, the ProQust source found by Mach61 refers to "the West Coast premiere of Aaron Jay Kernis's Quartet No. 3". This article satisfies the first of Additional considerations: Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Thus, Q.E.D. 20:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes GNG/NORG with significant coverage in The Oregonian, Oregon Public Broadcasting, and other sources. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:HEY. Nominator has withdrawn.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:HEY. Baqi:) (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films and TV programs containing corporal punishment scenes

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

This list has indiscriminate selection criteria, listing creative works based on the presence of a single, broadly-defined scene instead of a theme or genre. QuietCicada chirp 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Lists. QuietCicada chirp 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir, may I have another? One of the most ludicrous lists I've ever seen. Let's just delete this blatant NLIST failure/OR magnet. I'm not sure much more needs to be said about this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We are not TV Tropes. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost every show has corporal punishment in some way. Is the article making meaningful commentary out of it? Not really. Delete. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST stand alone fringe topic.— Maile (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below from MrSchimpf are exactly correct: "bad fetish content under the guise of 'education' — Maile (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Revdel and Salt Outside one other article, this is someone's SPA augmented over time to shove bad fetish content under the guise of 'education', with incredibly specific and uncomfortable notes about the punishments given (the notes about a scene in a sitcom, Community, are well above the pale) and several other pieces of children's media detail the punishment given to minors in a certain type of detail that should frankly be removed altogether (whoever added the Our Gang example...what the **** is wrong with you?!), thus the salting. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST and NOTDB, and MrSchimf's comments above. Also, is it starting to snow in here? ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it wasn't snowing earlier, it is now. At best this list is just pure trivia. There's nothing here to show where this is encyclopedic - no coverage of corporal punishment in films or anything like that. At worst, it's a list that can get unwieldy very quickly because corporal punishment tends to happen quite a bit in media. There's just no merit to having this on Wikipedia. The fact that it could have possibly been created as fetish content doesn't really help matters either, admittedly. But we don't have to consider that when it comes to deleting this because it's clear that even in a best case scenario it's random trivia that doesn't contribute anything to Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I do think that there could be some justification in covering how corporal punishment is depicted in film, but that would need to be a prose section, not a list of films depicting it. For example, this book has a section about how corporal punishment has been depicted in prison films, namely that such films have the potential to create talking points. But that is certainly not being accomplished with this list article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close‎. There is no rationale for deletion presented here and this is Articles for Deletion and that is not what is being proposed here. In fact, the deletion rationale sounds more like the nominator was looking for confirmation that this article should be Kept which is not what AFD is for. This seems like an end run around a legitimate Merge discussion at Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Editors who believe that this articles should be a standalone article are encouraged to participate in that discussion and make your arguments there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and antisemitism

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

A consensus to merge exists at the talk page, this AfD to confirm that it should be carried out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge While I respect and appreciate the efforts to improve the article and make it more neutral, I don't feel the article has the coherence to exist on its own. I don't feel many/any sources deal with the topic as a whole so as to give it notability so WP:COATRACK is a problem here, to quote the essay An article about some phenomenon might include multiple subsections, each of which is supposedly an example of the article's subject. If there is good sourcing that unifies all of these examples under one general topic, then that can be appropriate. I don't see the good sourcing unifying these examples, so would recommend inclusion in other articles such as Criticism of wikipedia or Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

In addition, the Holocaust Related Bias section, gives extremely extensive coverage to two papers which are actually not about antisemitism, but instead focus on the use of the holocaust by modern wikipedians of different nationalities. This is really interesting, but is not about antisemitism, it is about the way antisemitic atrocities of the past are framed to fit political agendas in Poland, Israel, Ukraine and Russia. Is this really within the scope of an article on antisemitism in wikipedia?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, that essay's idea of needing sources to unify examples doesn't have a basis in policy. It mentions WP:SYNTH, but that applies to statements, not compilations of statements. It also seems like most of Category:Criticisms would fail that essay's standard.

I'll need to look into that Holocaust content, but it sounds like an argument for trimming some content which isn't that central to the article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that in this case we are doing quite a lot of legwork to editorially select what might constitute antisemitism. I really think the whole Israel section doesn't belong for example. The criticism of wikipedia article is quite clear on what should go in it, so we can be fairly safe in adding it, but the title here is not.

The stuff in the two framing articles is mostly unbiased, but it would fit better in the article on Ideological bias in Wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I would support trimming any content that sources do not link to claims of antisemitism. Some of that has already been done but there may be a bit more trimming to do. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify - it clearly meets WP:GNG, but the article is young, its scope is still evolving, there's an open naming discussion, and there are various issues which are being worked on. The proposer and closer of the merge had agreed to allow a bit more time before an AfD. I'd prefer even more time, so draftification might be appropriate. That would avoid sniping the article before it has a chance to develop, while also avoiding unfixed issues in mainspace. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close This is out of process. The move discussion on the page is also out of process. Just close the merge discussion and then let's see where it goes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion was on the wrong page, but I don't think that's enough to throw away a strong consensus and say "do it all again".Boynamedsue (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No the merge discussion is fine. It is the move discussion, started today despite an extant merge discussion, that is out of process. I'll post to AN and see if we can get an admin to close the merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: Articles for Deletion is not for merger discussions. If there is consensus on the talk page, then an uninvolved editor should close the discussion and carry out the merge. C F A 💬 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's admittedly a messy situation, but my request to the closer would be to treat this as a deletion request -
- I argued for a conversion from a merge to AfD, based on the practical effect of the action.
- The merge proposer & closer later agreed to switch to AfD. They planned to file tomorrow, but were preempted with this unusual "merge AfD".
- ProfGray already added summary content in the proposed destination, so the status quo is essentially a parent-child setup. We can't really fit more content there (already borderline WP:TOOBIG), so a merge probably wouldn't result in any actual merging. Effectively we're just deciding on deletion now.
If you or Nyttend have opinions regarding deletion (as if this were a standard AfD), it might be useful to know, in the event that the closer does end up evaluating this as a deletion request. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Judaism, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural background. The proposer closed the Merge discussion on Oct 30th. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer agreed in the edit summary: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday, at 22:38 pm Eastern. Fwiw, the original merge discussion had most comments before Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Nonwithstanding possible rename options which are OK. Andre🚐 22:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already agreement on the talk page that the current title is not even a topic. There is no agreement on an alternative title and no agreement on the article scope, never mind any other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aside from possible orignial research, I believe the article demonstrated enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I have no comment regarding the proposed merge; that should be dealt on its substituent talk page. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. If merging, it should only be parts of the page, not the whole thing. The issue really isn't notability, so much as whether it is encyclopedic as a standalone page. There is way too much WP:SYNTH and some very serious problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK, intersecting with edit warring over the merge. ~~And now, a bot has flagged the page as even having WP:COPYVIO problems.~~ --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The diff the bot flagged was this one (see the CopyPatrol report) because of the quote in the reference, which is valid under fair use. There is no copyright violation. No comment on the other issues. C F A 💬 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The nomination isn't asking for deletion, there's overlap with a merge discussion at the talk page, and nobody here has advocated only deletion. All these factors combine to make a procedural muddle. Wait until the merge discussion is closed, and if there's no consensus for a merge, someone's free to propose deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no need to separate the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standalone per WP:GNG given significant coverage of topic, both in academic and media reliable sources. Please see my full comment in the Merge discussion. ProfGray (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as standalone per WP:GNG given significant coverage of the topic, both in academic and media reliable sources. Furthermore, an attempt by the Wikipedia community to downplay the topic, which is a criticism of Wikipedia, would look like self-serving. Why should this be treated differently than Wikipedia coverage of American politics? Vegan416 (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources, more than enough to warrant an independent article. Wikipedia is an important worldwide phenomenon, and we must judge this topic by the same criteria as any other article, such as Antisemitism on social media. Whizkin (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Antisemitism on social media, perhaps there could a brief summary there and then a link to this as the Main article. But then would there be a big to-do by folks arguing that WP is not a "social media" or social networking site, even though it's often treated as such in scholarship? ProfGray (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was using Antisemitism on social media as an example. I don't think that Wikipedia is a form of social media; apologies if I was unclear. Whizkin (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic and amply sourced. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think we should follow the original merge proposal to Criticism of Wikipedia. I know the original closer said they'd allow a follow up for a AfD, but I don't think this is necessary, we should stick to the original proposal's results. There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus on the article's talk page, so it seems wrong to then ignore that & try again here. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThinBasic

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

Can't find anything to satisfy GNG. The sources I could find with significant coverage are thinBasic's own website, stuff published by Eros Olmi (creator of the language) and Petr Schreiber (major contributor to the language, has his own subdomain of thinbasic.com), and self-published lists of of BASIC dialects. I propose a redirect to List of BASIC dialects#T. Tangentially, this Wikipedia article was created and updated by Olmi and Schreiber. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are just the project's website in a trench coat. Brandon (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelle of the Saracens

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

I was quite excited to find this article - and ended up disappointed when I realized that despite its decent size, it does not refer to the subject once beyond the lead section. Of the three cited sources, two do not mention her at all, and the one that does seems to merely list her in an index. I found this book, which says: "Adelle was a physician active in Salerno. All we really know of her is that she was a lecturer at the Salerno Medical School." Indeed this is all the article said 10 years ago when it was created by Aciram, who likely thought that there was more about her somewhere. It seems, however, that nothing beyond these two sentences can be said about Adelle, and so there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose mentioning Adelle in the background section of the article women of Salerno, which is about Salernitan women physicians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Medicine. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing with WP:SIGCOV found. Also per my source assess table below. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Retsö, Jan (4 July 2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia	Per WP:BRITANNICA, other sources are preferred.	Adelle is never mentioned.	✘ No
Ferraris, Z. A.; Ferraris, V. A. (December 1997). "The women of Salerno: contribution to the origins of surgery from medieval Italy"		Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
Kyle, Sarah R. (2016-08-12). Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua	Held in university libraries	Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science	Held in university libraries	Barely mentions her	✘ 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}}.

Delete. According to this (Italian version here), there was no Adelle. She comes from a late foundation myth for the Salernitan school. There were four founding doctors: the Greek Pontus, the Hebrew Helinus, the Saracen Adela and the Latin Salernus. In the paper linked, the tale is taken as allegory of knowledge converging from the four corners of the Earth on Salerno, an acknowledgement of the culturally and linguistically diverse origins of its medicine. She is mentioned twice at Schola Medica Salernitana as "Abdela", which is not correct, but reflects (I think) the idea that Adela/Adala is a corruption of an Arabic name like Abdul. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sunatori

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTPROMO Promotional content, contains "puffery" and promotes Magnescribe pen. Wikipedia:Autobiography written like a CV, describing the subjects work history and achievements. Wikipedia:Notability MagneScribe invention and various other products not notable, only article found online was https://www.cracked.com/article_15768_as-seen-tv-10-most-laughably-misleading-ads.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbbv (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I declined the G11 CSD tag on this article primarily because it has existed since 2007 (it was recreated 2 months after the first 2007 AFD and declined for G4 speedy back then) and suggested the AFD route. It is a BLP which lists only primary self-published citations. My online search found no independent Reliable Sources with any significant coverage of this person. It fails the WP:GNG guideline for WP:SIGCOV. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage in Gnews or Newspapers. Sourced to patents and mentions in newspapers. I don't see any coverage we can use. Appears to be promo. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insanely promotional, may be notable but honestly needs to be hit with the WP:TNT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and is filled with promotional content, with a lack of reliable sources to support it. I apologize for this oversight. Baqi:) (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host, resume service, patent registration, or LinkedIn. Patents are primary sources by definition. Bearian (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Ray (singer)

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

An article about a musician. There's no independent coverage at all; exlinks are some very minor database entries and a defunct personal website. There's no evidence that this person comes anywhere close to meeting any of the parameters listed in WP:MUSICBIO. The article lists various "worked with" of somewhat notable musicians, but that doesn't confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Claims of some airplay and internet streaming airplay, even if they were sourced, would not confer notability.

Note that there are a number of other country artists called "Bobby Ray" or something similar.

See also Bobby Ray LIVE, a redir to this article (formerly a copy of this article, deleted and redirected by WP:PROD). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't coverage of this person. Singing with other famous people isn't quite notable. Sourcing here is directory listings or social media/streaming sites. I don't find any mentions in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shareef Muhammed (producer)

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

Apart from producing a upcoming movie, the subject hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy for an article. All the sources are about his upcoming movie. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject look promising, he is only notable for one event (Producing "Marco" Movie)which is not enough to create an article for him here. Tesleemah (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Producers are mostly covered by the media in the context of the projects they invest in, which makes it difficult for them to meet GNG requirements.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one film in subject's credit, fails WP:NPRODUCER. No significant coverage on the biography of the subject and the sources are poor with only passing mentions. RangersRus (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has only one unreleased project and is supported by weak sources, failing to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, producers aren’t automatically notable. We routinely delete articles about production personnel because they are so run of the mill. Furthermore, in India, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India requires a close eye. Bearian (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Laggam (film). A move can be discussed and implemented at editorial discretion Star Mississippi 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laggam

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

The article Laggam (film) already exists, and is more comprehensive. Content from Laggam can be merged into Laggam (film) if necessary. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This issue can be resolved by requesting a merge and someone has already submitted a request for it. Now that the issue has been brought to AFD, the content of Laggam should be merged into Laggam (film). But after the merger the title should be changed to just "Laggam".Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Lujan

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

Negative BLP on marginally notable person. Insufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable, I don't see criminal notability. Rather local notability about a law enforcement officer that was removed from office. I don't see lasting notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m all for the name, blame, and shame school of criminology. I’m not sure it’s the consensus. Bearian (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Jamroz Khan

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

No reliable sources cited. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lack of sources noted since 2009 without improvement. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good catch on this one! I can’t even find any trivia coverage about this person, let alone SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Common name that pops up, I don't see anything about this particular individual. It's only sourced to facebook, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any sources that would make the source any more notable. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per saqib.--گل زیب (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find reliable sources. SIGCOV is also not satisfied. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy In Gujarat

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

I am not sure this page should be Keep or Deleted, So thats why I placed AFD tag. Camilear (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Piracy and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Camilear: Have a look at this. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, Oh look like sock, Please do the investigation and if he is sock then block it. Camilear (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin, this sock is just moving the pages which are created by IP, from draft to main spaces, here is the another move Nana Farari did by User:Chhello bhai, Thanks. Camilear (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from my experience of interactions with this sock farm, they tend to create drafts using IPs and move them to mainspace using their socks later. WP:GAMING at best. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of schools in Lagos. @HandsomeBoy: please nominate other articles you feel need discussion and consensus can decide. There is no guaranteed status based on another AfD. Star Mississippi 22:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos State Model College Badore

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

Non-notable school. The only source (the second's link is dead) is the school's own website, and I found very little reliable sources with significant coverage online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It’s a small high school, one of tens of thousands in a country of tens of millions. No evidence or even allegations of anything special. Bearian (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As at the time this article was created, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was still in effect and I can remember in the aftermath one of the consensus was that it should be more applied to futuristic articles rather with older articles. In its current state, from a referencing perspective, the article might not contain much but that is because of the digital coverage of secondary schools in its demography, especially one that is tuition-free by the government.

However, despite these challenges, Lagos State Model College Badore is one of the few high schools that manages to still have numerous mentions in multiple reliable sources from time to time, it might not be substantial but there are many sources which are actually independent, so I strongly disagree with the nom and !delete above. Just imagine an high school defeats all government-owned schools in New York (or the commercial capital of the US) in a very top and historic competition, will you still classify such an high school as "small and nothing special"? Please read this and this. There are still many more sources, I remember the school producing a one-day governor of Lagos State in the early 2000s.

If the state of the article is the issue, I understand that and it can be improved but certainly not being a "small school", and I am saying this being very factual as someone that have independently researched multiple secondary schools in Lagos. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no grandfathering in of old pages. All schools must meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Thanks for the two sources. These are, in fact, primary sources (news reporting), and the real issue with them is they give nothing we can use to write an in depth page about the school. We are looking for articles from which we can write the page. Histories would be ideal, but secondary sources that analyse the school in any way can all be used. Do you happen to know who the governor of the state was? Notable alumni are relevant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spill some ugly truth especially since you said: All schools must meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG, if you are waiting to see multiple independent significant coverage in reliable source for a public secondary school in this demography, you will never get that. Reliable sources do not care about secondary schools except they are paid. The best you will see is when news-worthy events happen in the school, they might cover it. That's all. As for the governor, I did a basic Google search and she is actually the first female governor in Lagos ever. You can read 1, 2. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading that source right, the student won a spelling bee and got to act as the governor for a day as a prize. That doesn't make her notable, nor does it add to notability of the school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and notable alumni doesn't make the school notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Lagos where it is listed. Per HandsomeBoy, there is no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. I found a handful of news reports - an extremly small number, in fact. These are primary and don't give anything to say about the school itself. HandsomeBoy is correct that this is largely down to where the school is located, and the paucity of English language sources is not unusual for Nigerian schools, and it is unfortunate. However the purpose of location of sources is to allow an encyclopaedic article to be written. Without sources the article is doomed to be an unverifiable stub. If it is the case that such sources will never arise then it is also the case that we cannot have the article. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. I would be hopeful that some history of the school will be written one day, and when that happens the redirect can be overwritten and the page restored based on the coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of schools in Lagos. Even when taking Googles geographical bias in account, there are insufficient independent sources that hint to the school notability. The Banner talk 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest whatever the consensus at the end of this AFD, be also applied to Lagos State Junior Model College Badore. If consensus is to delete, then both should be deleted. If consensus is to redirect, then both should be redirected. I am saying this because the senior school is more historic and has more coverage than the junior school, so there is no point wasting Wikipedians time on another AFD. Systematic bias in my opinion, but that is consensus and we all have to respect that. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt van de Rijck

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are primary. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Previous AFD does not apply as the subjects are different. ✗plicit 14:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Worsley

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. At best, minor notability for an incident involving Michael van Gerwen but nothing else. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete previous AfD seems to be for an actor. In any case, this one fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Zuydwijk

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent nor significant coverage, no notable achievements. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Foreign relations of Ireland#Zambia per consensus here and the result of the previous AfD, which participants here agree still applies. I placed an XC protection to prevent another disruptive reverts. Please ping me if this needs to be upgraded to a full SALT. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Zambia relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD outcome was redirect. A year later someone reverts this redirect with no improvement to article. These relations still fail GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and salt. Per previous AfD, as nothing has changed. Yilloslime (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Short article, but has sources that may have it meet requirements. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see 1st AfD...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This could be considered a procedural redirect, but the redirect here would be appropriate anyway considering the focus on Irish foreign aid. I'm a bit surprised at the unilateral reversion. I do not like the idea of salting here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Kulashko

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

Article subject has very little notability. No SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerkin

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

This is little more than an Armenian dictionary definition. A soft redirect to the Wikitionary entry for ներքին would seem appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikitionary entry for ներքին; this word is not notable, basically just a dictionary definition as stated. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:DICDEF, nor is there any particular reason to create a soft redirect to Wiktionary here any more than there is for any other random non-English word, especially since an external search for "nerkin" comes up with all sorts of other matches which have nothing to do with the Armenian word. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many languages have words for 'lower' and 'upper' that commonly occur in place names; what makes Armenian special? —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:R#DELETE: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. The Wiktionary article transliterates it as nerkʻin not as nerkin and no sources have been given showing discussion of this transliteration in English language reliable sources, so it qualifies as a "novel or very obscure synonym". Hence there is no need to make a redirect. Stockhausenfan (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrashekar Bandiyappa

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

Procedural nomination. Contested Jimfbleak's WP:G11 deletion and reverted to a non-promotional revision. Potentially meets WP:DIRECTOR through his filmography. I would !vote weak keep, but I have no real opinion as I have not investigated this topic in any great detail. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR pass with 3 notable films that received critical attention. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:NFILMMAKER where all his films got multiple reviews in reliable sources. This page still needs lot of improvement made with better sources and more coverage on the career. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the three films have critical review, we should have enough to pass notability for film directors. Two films were also nominated for awards, helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes criteria four of WP:NFILMMAKER as having significant critical attention.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes NDIRECTOR with 3 notable films. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No arguments for deletion, and no consensus for the proposed merge, leaving us with a Keep. The merge proposal can be pursued on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beauxbatons

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

This page has similar coverage and notability as other locations in the Harry Potter series, notably the Durmstrang academy as both locations have the same role in the series as schools in the triwizard tournament in the 4th harry potter book, which does not have its own article.

The references in the current article are currently two top 10 trivia lists from screenrant, an article written by JK Rowling herself about the school and other articles that talk about Beauxbatons along with other locations in the series with similar depth and focus.

Based on this with the WP:GNG guidelines I don't believe Beauxbatons has significant independent coverage to warrant its own article, and it should be merged with Places in Harry Potter with other locations in the series that have similar coverage. Mousymouse (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge makes sense to me, the best sources in the article aren’t actually about Beauxbatons exclusively, but about analysis of larger themes in the text, and I think the value of those citations could be preserved on the Places in Harry Potter page, or a section of another article dealing with analysis of themes around national identity and ethnicity in HP. penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Penultimate supper. Based on WP:GNG, this doesn't have significant coverage to warrant an article. But there is a valid WP:ATD and merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is specifically not relevant with regard to notability, if the article topic is the main topic of the source. What is relevant is if the secondary sources can provide enough material for a full article. Now the source by Flotmann, as well as others like Muggles, Monsters and Magicians, Creating Magical Worlds and "Harry Potter – National Hero and National Heroic Epic" all have commentary which goes significantly beyond a mention in passing, and can provide more material for an article which, as it is now, already goes beyond a stub. "A Postmodernistic Look at the Harry Potter Series" additionally has a much shorter, but non-trivial observation which I did not see in the other sources. The same is most likely true for Durmstrang. So both topics in my view fullfill WP:GNG. All that said, much coverage is done in direct comparison of Durmstrang and Beauxbaton. So while I think both could easily have their own article, I am also fine with them being covered in extended sections, or maybe even a combined section, at Places in Harry Potter. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And like Penultimate supper stated, the analysis deals with themes around national identity and ethnicity in Harry Potter. So if there was and article about that, that might be a good place to cover both, and that might be a more encyclopedic approach than the list of locations, but I don't know of such an article so far. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Daranios. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daranios's sources are sufficient to establish notability. McYeee (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see some evidence of canvassing here. Once !votes not based on P&G are discarded, I see a rough consensus that sources do not provide notability for this event. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humiston family murders

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

Tragic, but fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. If in future this somehow is covered in depth long term we can recreate it. CoconutOctopus talk 09:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete familicides very rarely fulfill NEVENT, and when they do it's usually obvious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ already a page Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged that obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is other family murder pages, why delete this? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloxzge 025 Because some incidents do end up being notable, through being analyzed or retrospected upon. Familicides are just less likely to get that kind of coverage, on account of the fact that they are by far the most common type of mass murder and tend to be fairly similar. Unless there's an obvious reason that they stick out it's best to wait until they prove notable and not make the article until that point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep, as I only voted delete per there already being a page and since other family murders with even lower deaths, etc. such as an earlier one this year still have an article. I would only vote delete if no new information comes out or coverage stops. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims is irrelevant in determining notability; the crossbow case you link is certainly notable as it was covered in depth and continually in the media (especially as the victims were the family of a media personality). I do not believe this article is notable and that it fails WP:TOOSOON and NOTNEWS. CoconutOctopus talk 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This event litteraly just happened and more information is still coming out, and you still want to delete it? I would say give it a while before you delete it Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until such time as the courts make a decision about whether this is a murder or not and decide to convict anyone for the deaths, or not. Without a conviction, Wikipedia should not even call this a murder as the accused should be presumed innocent. There is also a redirect that should be included in this discussion and treated the same way. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete I agree with CoconutOctopus's reasoning. Peaceray (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not even have a Wikidata item! Peaceray (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a major news item and rather compelling evidence (the 11-year-old's testimony, clear forensic evidence) that the 15-year-old boy committed the murders. Additionally, the WP:NOTNEWS argument fails quickly with a search for "Humiston family murders" or any other related term. Phoenixskies (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not that the topic itself is not a news item (which it absolutely is). Also, regardless of how compelling the evidence is, we can't state someone is responsible for a murder until they are actually found guilty by a court of law. CoconutOctopus talk 13:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I misread the policy. The page invariably refers to the 15-year-old as "the accused" instead of "the murderer," though. Phoenixskies (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It’s definitely a developing story, but I wouldn’t say it violates WP:TOOSOON. This policy says, “Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources.” This story is verified by multiple independent sources, and none of the claims are any that are unverified. For example, the 15-year-old is not described as being guilty but of being accused of the crime. Brittanyktanner (talk) Brittanyktanner (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are secondary, they are all WP:PRIMARYNEWS. So this does not pass the GNG, and it does not have any of the things on NEVENT that would justify waiting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. See List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 for a multitude of other familicides with similar numbers of victims. An incident of familicide being picked up by national news organizations does not necessarily make it noteworthy enough to be an article. Raskuly (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS PersusjCP (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other familicide shootings like the 2023 Doerman Killings and the 2024 East Lansdowne and Joliet shootings have their own articles, and the death count of 5 is significant. User:OperationBarbarossa 3 November 2024
- The 2023 Doerman killings in my opinion shouldn't have an article, the 2024 East Lansdowne shooting also involved a shootout with police that wounded two officers, and the 2024 Joliet shootings is the deadliest in Illinois history and involved a multi-state manhunt. Raskuly (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in the States and didn't know about this incident until today. It's far from notable, as familicides rarely ever are. MountainJew6150 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. czar 03:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldinho (footballer, born 1945)

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

No sign of notability. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – There are some online sources [3], [4], and considering the period and number of matches, there must be more offline. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really enough to meet WP:GNG and arguing WP:TMBS here feels pretty weak, especially since one of the sources is somebody's substack. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For players from the 60s-80s in major European leagues, it is inevitable that there is nothing in local newspapers and compendiums. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inevitable that there is something, probably? Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Show some WP:COMMONSENSE. 200+ apps for Vitoria, a major club. Giant Snowman 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe this is a valid WP:STUB article, for some reason, some editors don't believe in stub articles anymore. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "There must be sources somewhere" is not a valid argument. WP:V requires that sources are found and cited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is verified by the link in the article, this one, which is also reliable. Significant coverage is lacking, but Svartner did provide a link. Geschichte (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Portugal national team player with 200+ top flight pro appearances in pre internet era so defintly has offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. czar 03:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Seafood Bar

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

This is a minor chain of restaurants that fails to meet WP:NCORP. There are some restaurant reviews online, but no WP:SIGCOV, no evidence of awards won, or similar notable coverage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their website has a press section[5] which includes a detailed Guardian review and a link to a paywalled Financial Times review which I'm unable to judge the value of. It's got mentions in the London Evening Standard[6] and Amsterdam Mag/Amsterdam Now[7] but not in depth. Coverage in The Caterer magazine[8], a long-running publication. The generic name makes searching harder. I'm unable to check Dutch-language sources, but the lack of a page on Dutch-language WP is a red flag. But close to notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Links to The Guardian review [9] and Financial Times review [10]. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am attaching more significant sources which are not included in the article, [11], [12], [13], [14]. In WP:PAYWALL, it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I believe that instead of completely rejecting those sources we should seek help from Resource Exchange. - Snubvane (talk) 19:19, 25 October 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) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. THREE articles in het Eindhovens Dagblad and TWO articles in Het Parool count pull this chain well over the NCORP bar. The TWO British reviews also count toward notability—one of these apparently. The GNG is met in a heartbeat. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add those articles as suitable references? I'm not a Dutch speaker, so can't do it myself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently they also have a sort of dark and moody underground bar or "speakeasy" in a sub-basement under the London branch (as well something along the same lines in Amsterdam too). If the only reason for this AfD listing is lack of N, then I don't think that that is the case. The place(s) seem to pass GNG, so I'd say we ought keep the article. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through Art – to Peace and Understanding

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

The significance of the award has not been demonstrated separately from Slavyansky Bazar. There are no independent authoritative references.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Awards, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 27 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!} 09:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus that the plethora of cited mentions do not provide the SIGCOV required by WP:NACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Taek-Gwang Lee

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

Edit: I'm on the fence.

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Can't find any notable coverage of their work in news media either. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His work is every where(books, lectures, articles). It is on Jstor, Google scholar, Google Books, Print like The Guardian has mentioned him. He is writing on Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet This is his google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=oAEdHDkAAAAJ&hl=en

This his Jstor search result: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Alex+Taek-Gwang+Lee&so=rel

He has edited a book with Salvoz Zizek https://www.versobooks.com/products/196-the-idea-of-communism-3?srsltid=AfmBOoqosEfP3Y6T5G2tDhErrlHwpEeUJFbFSsTUrhNnnkZoF9LoIJWV

He is extensively writings on French and German Philosophy and Korean Culture. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that you have made a mistake. I request you to please reconsider your decision. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

He is a known philosopher who is writing on Deleuze and Guattari, Korean Culture and other cultural topics. His publication is everywhere. WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePerfectYellow (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. Having a Google Scholar profile or having previously published books or articles doesn't help, otherwise every academic in the world would qualify for a Wikipedia article. seefooddiet (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think reputed and highly discussed books an topics are basic for academia. There are series of reputed portals who have discussed about him and give his references for saying things. Publication like The Idea of Communism 3, which he coedited with Salvoz Zizek and Salvoz also mentioned him in his writings(https://slguardian.org/we-already-live-in-the-end-of-the-world/). His writings on Deleuze and Guattari and Korean Culture are not just ordinary. He is reputed Deleuzian scholar and member of various academic society. i have given the enough reference for that. And I am keep updating his work. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

google Scholar, Goolge Books and Jstor have been required as (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. ) On this, scholar writes their books. Although, the reception of their works is important. So, he has been recognised many places for his writings on new Marxism and philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us the exact sources, you want. Scholars have cited his works a lot. So, i am also using these. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the work and reception part by using third party references. Will update this tomorrow. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're making efforts to improve the article. Respectfully, I'm still skeptical that it passes NACADEMIC. Some of the mentions you provide are trivial mentions (see WP:SIGCOV). They're brief one or two sentence mentions of Lee. The major criteria I think Lee may pass is possibly #1 (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources), but you'd have to provide sources with more than just trivial coverage to show that. Otherwise a lot of what has been presented in this thread is just your word that he is impactful. seefooddiet (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet I have rewrite the entire passage of 'work and reception' and have used all the third party references. Request you to kindly check. I have mentioned two important concepts which he drives: his intervention in the philosophical debate of 'concept creation' as he explained it as 'third world' and 'eschatological force' as he uses this phrase to describe the pain and trauma of Korean people from Korean war and conflict.

Other than this, I have also mentioned his ideas reception in media. He is also the member of respected academic societies and journals.

I request you to kindly check! ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, these are still trivial mentions, and most academics are members of various societies. It still doesn't meet NACADEMIC. seefooddiet (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS doesn't seem to be finding much in the way of citations? One authored book is mentioned, as well as an co-edited one, so WP:AUTHOR might be an easier route than PROF (but with a more senior co-editor on the latter I'm not sure how one might interpret any reviews). Open to persuasion but not seeing much here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleuze and Guattris studies is an emerging academic field. Not many scholars have intervene in this. This is very much exclusive right now. But that doesn't mean this in not valuable. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we go with WP:AUTHOR , the point number 2 and 3 are perfectly suitable for him. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For AUTHOR #2 ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique") I think you would need to provide a reasonable number of unrelated academics who explicitly stated this. For #3, you would need to provide multiple book reviews covering at least two books, and even then there's only one authored book, and many discount edited books. To be honest, I worry that the subject has not yet gained sufficient traction in the academic community. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He ahs written many books on Korean culture and korean issues. I am listing here the links where his opinion from his writings and reviews of his book has been published.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/histories-of-violence-the-ghosts-of-civilized-violence/

https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/culture_general/4745.html

https://www.ijejutoday.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=230029

https://web.archive.org/web/20170824093816/http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/taek_gwang_lee.html

http://m.100news.kr/24621

https://brunch.co.kr/@critic/176

https://www.unipress.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=8152

https://brunch.co.kr/@minq17/254

There are many more. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced of this argument. Similar opinion to Espresso Addict. seefooddiet (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to understand your standpoint. I have shown what you have asked for. Kindly check. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you more reviews and mentions by the other media and authors. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I'm not sure anymore. Ok, I'll change my vote to keep. The first three links in this comment are possibly sufficient coverage. seefooddiet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet I request you to kindly remove the deletion nomination from the Alex Taek-Gwang Lee page. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other people may vote. seefooddiet (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okays, wait, then. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet I request you to kindly look into this or should we wait? ThePerfectYellow (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you what I wanted to do and you already agreed; please be patient. seefooddiet (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this person meets WP:NACADEMIC. Seems to be some confusion that just because a person has published works means they're notable for our purposes which is untrue. Outside of their own self-published works, all I see is short bio blurbs by publishing companies and quick one line mentions in articles, none of which represent WP:SIGCOV which is a core pillar of notability. Article's prose itself help out either... nothing in it tells me why this person is notable. Going line by line through WP:NACADEMIC's requirements doesn't hit anywhere. RachelTensions (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider the Verso, Anthem, Bloomsbury Publication, Cambridge Scholars Publishing etc as a self-publishing agent? ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective even taking all of that into account I'm not convinced of notability. seefooddiet (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia deals with collective intelligence and we all respect that. I request you to check all these from a fresh eye. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts [15] far too low for WP:PROF#C1 even in a low-citation field. One authored book and two edited volumes are not going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR, it's not actually the books themselves that provide notability that way, and whether they have a respectable publisher or are self-published is not very relevant. What we need instead is reliably published reviews by other people of multiple books authored by him, not edited. In any case searching JSTOR and Google Scholar found no reviews of his books. And the sources, most of which are by the subject, contain quotes for the subject, or are event announcements, are so full of fluff that I cannot find among them anything of high enough depth and independent to contribute towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has many books on Korean culture and politics. The links of their reviews, I have submitted earlier in this discussion. You may check here, again:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/histories-of-violence-the-ghosts-of-civilized-violence/

https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/culture_general/4745.html

https://www.ijejutoday.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=230029

https://web.archive.org/web/20170824093816/http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/taek_gwang_lee.html

http://m.100news.kr/24621

https://brunch.co.kr/@critic/176

https://www.unipress.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=8152

https://brunch.co.kr/@minq17/254

Not just this. His SEO is also working with this keyword 'Taek-Gwang Lee'. You can search through this to find more relevant links.

Not just one book, he has more half-dozen books, I have mentioned just two. Two is more about to come. One is from Routledge and one is from Sublation. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"His SEO is also working". What telling phrasing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search Engine Opitimisation: His name is also spell as Taek Gwang Lee and in Korean 이택광. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brunch is a South Korean blogging service, unreliable per WP:SELFPUBLISHED. seefooddiet (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am here sending you the more reviews of his books:

https://www.idomin.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=453925

https://vop.co.kr/A00000777793.html

Here, his work in Korean academics.

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%EC%9D%B4%ED%83%9D%EA%B4%91&tbm=bks&hl=en&gl=in&ei=UaMtZ7rAJp6vseMPlt_iqQs&ved=0ahUKEwj6rLGKgsyJAxWeV2wGHZavOLUQsJ4FCAM

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%EB%B0%95%EA%B7%BC%ED%98%9C%EB%8A%94+%EB%AC%B4%EC%97%87%EC%9D%98+%EC%9D%B4%EB%A6%84%EC%9D%B8%EA%B0%80&sca_esv=786f0427ca544071&hl=en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ADLYWIK3Djhed0ILRgDpotxKM2s1dvaaZg%3A1731044112831&ei=EKMtZ4K0Mv2RseMP85LU2Qs&ved=0ahUKEwiC_L3rgcyJAxX9SGwGHXMJNbsQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%EB%B0%95%EA%B7%BC%ED%98%9C%EB%8A%94+%EB%AC%B4%EC%97%87%EC%9D%98+%EC%9D%B4%EB%A6%84%EC%9D%B8%EA%B0%80&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIiPrsJXqt7ztmJzripQg66y07JeH7J2YIOydtOumhOyduOqwgEjgmwFQjgtYnZYBcAJ4AJABAJgBzAKgAYYHqgEFMi0yLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgCgAgCoAgCYAwGIBgGSBwCgB9IC&sclient=gws-wiz-books ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I request you to kindly recheck all this.
- 《들뢰즈의 극장에서 그것을 보다》. 갈무리. 2002년. ISBN 8986114445
- 《한국 문화의 음란한 판타지》. 이후. 2002년. ISBN 8988105516
- 《영단어 인문학 산책》. 난장이. 2010년. ISBN 9788996172871
- 《인문좌파를 위한 이론 가이드》. 글항아리. 2010년. ISBN 9788993905243
- 《인상파 파리를 그리다》. 아트북스. 2011년. ISBN 9788961960779
- 《이것이 문화비평이다》. 자음과모음. 2011년. ISBN 9788957075753
- 《99% 정치》. 마티. 2012년. ISBN 9788992053549
- 《마녀 프레임》. 자음과 모음. 2013년. ISBN 9788957077290
- 《인생론》. 북노마드. 2014년. ISBN 9788997835423
- 《박근혜는 무엇의 이름인가》. 시대의창. 2014년. ISBN 9788959402953
ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, sending you the link where he has been covered in news.

https://www.inkl.com/glance/news/in-south-korea-a-tv-show-airing-north-korean-defectors-stories-is-riling-kim-jong-un-s-regime?first_login=true&section=personalized

https://ch.yes24.com/Article/View/17910

https://www.g-enews.com/article/General-News/2020/01/202001201000162590f67c3fc824_1

https://www.mbn.co.kr/news/culture/4843312

https://ch.yes24.com/Article/View/17910

There are many dailies, where he is writing columns regularly. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these links are duplicates (the yes24 ones) and the first link is a trivial mention.

I'm on the fence about notability, but still skeptical. ThePerfectYellow, please mind your behavior; make sure to avoid trivial mentions and send only reliable sources. It makes it harder to trust you when you do this. seefooddiet (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet Apology, for this. I will make sure to not repeat this. Sir. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas challenge flag

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

It would appear to me this is a neologism. The article lacks references, and with the required WP:BEFORE done, that would seem to be because it is a new term that is without attestation in reliable sources. A move to a notional Draft:Texas challenge flag considered, but I doubt in would, at least in the near future - let's say by 2025 - be accepted. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the title is bad but the incidents are verifiable and the reliable sources are connecting those incidents as being related (to the idea that since the game has to stop if objects are thrown on the field, fans are doing such throwing because they disagree with officials/referees' calls). [I am the article creator] (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 10:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources provided that refer to this topic. The only sources I find that refer to this are eith not reliable or not independent. E.g. this. Delete per WP:NOTNEO, WP:GNG, and bordering on WP:HOAX. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fan/flag situation at the game was somewhat notable, but no cited sources use this WP:NEO article title. Could add mentions to 2024 NCAA Division I FBS football season instead... or try to establish notability of the Texas vs. Georgia game itself for its own article. I would support creation of an article like Interference (baseball) for gridiron football where notable instances like this can be listed. Perhaps should list it at List of violent spectator incidents in sports... "Incidents of object or snow throwing are included when it ... causes significant delays or cancellation of the event." PK-WIKI (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete under that title, as there are no reliable sources using the phrase "Texas challenge flag". Also, that title assumes that these incidents acted as a challenge flag, despite the evidence that it had no effect on officiating. I very much doubt that this content is salvageable under any title because it's not clear that the three incidents are more than superficially related, and it's even less clear that the throwing of debris had any effect beyond a fine for the home team (in at least one case). Pichpich (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a disconnect between fans' understanding of the rules, and the actual rules. That's the whole reason there was no actual effect. But what the cited articles are referring to is the fact that some fans think that they can achieve a reversed call this way, which is why they have tried to do it. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 00:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing debris on the field/pitch/ice/court when the crowd doesn't like a call is a time-honored tradition and existed way before video review. It's a dumb way to express one's frustration but I'm sure the vast majority of those throwing debris are not dumb enough to think it will influence the refs and help their team. Pichpich (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't even know where to start with this: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and moreso WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Probably some WP:OR mixed in also, but it's not worth spending more time than necessary examining that. There's only two sources that have a chance of counting towards WP:GNG, but they don't mention this term let alone directly discuss the topic with in-depth secondary coverage. The conference website is not an independent reference for those incidents, and their official statements are primary sources. Left guide (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that as additional games have occurred, additional debris-throwing incidents have occurred, and additional sources have mentioned the connection to Texas-Georgia, I have been able to expand the article further with additional content and references. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 05:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may add those two incidents here, using the same references. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Kuprashvili

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

Apparent memorial page for a local commander of a rebellion. According to the article it relies largely on archival (primary) sources. There may be better sources in Georgian that I can’t search for, but the Georgian and Russian Wikipedia articles are based on the same sources as this. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Georgia (country), and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a good son! He participated in a revolutionary war. He died. End of story. Bearian (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Da-bin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and South Korea. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Windborne Rider i think you are the one who failed to read WP:NACTOR carefully Aidillia^(talk) 14:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles in the main cast of notable productions; roles in the main cast can be considered significant; so that I consider deletion unnecessary. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Dal Soon's Spring and Unpredictable Family. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the actor may not have a substantial number of achievements, awards, or nominations, the article meets the WP:NACTOR guidelines. This is supported by his involvement in two major TV series with prominent network productions such as KBS2 and JTBC, along with sufficient coverage, particularly in Korean sources.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cubes Entertainments

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

Non notable film production company. Fails WP:NCORP.There are no reliable independent multiple sources available as well. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails notability criteria for companies. No sources found. 115.247.203.26 (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: With only one project (unreleased), weak sources, fails notability criteria. Suggesting speedy delete as the article has little to no chance of surviving a deletion discussion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete started last year with Marco as their first project. All sources have covered the film with minimal information about the company itself.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:49, 9 November 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. (non-admin closure) Molecular Pilot 06:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Laihiala

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

Not notable. Only sources are social media, blogs and Imdb Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator The Finnish Wikipedia article has sources Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 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, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two very basic problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes a redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 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!} 06:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Pourassad

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

BLP lacking any proper sourcing, cut and pasted from draft. I wanted to draftify it but the draft still exists. Does not belong in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 27 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!} 06:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Urdu 1. I see a rough consensus not to keep this as a standalone page, with broad support for a merger with the channel article. Feel free to WP:BLAR if the merger isn't completed in three months. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Urdu 1

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

Tagged for notability in hopes of improvement but tag removed. A WP:BEFORE does not find significant coverage discussing the list as a whole so fails WP:NLIST. Would recommend merging the content to Urdu 1 but not finding significant coverage for the channel either. Looking at some of the programs listed, I believe a lot will fail notability as well. Searching for ("amanat" + "Urdu 1") finds nothing on Gnews, and only sources such as YouTube and social media in regular Google. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Might need cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that you are again citing MOS and not a GUIDELINE. We could create many lists on many topics if we simply use MOS. Can you point out the sources that discuss the list as a group which is a requirement of WP:NLIST?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Again"? I am going to try in capital letters, myself, maybe then :D. "AGAIN"? WP:NLIST IS A GUIDELINE. IT IS A GUIDELINE. A. GUIDELINE. A. NOTABILITY. GUIDELINE. And please JUST. READ. WHAT. I. WROTE. (all the words). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you linked here, which is a Manual of Style guideline. It is NOT a notability guideline. You cite this and WP:SPLITLIST in other AfDs as if they somehow superseded notability guidelines. You missed the part in NLIST (or selectively decided to ignore) where it says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I will ask as I have in other AfDs...can you show the significant coverage where the list is discussed in a grouping? As far as your tone, I would ask that you act a little more WP:CIVIL as its not acceptable conduct. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

d-just re-read my !vote "again" and my comment below if you're interested. "i" did not "link" anything that the guideline does not include: the link is included in the original text of the guideline, which is what I quoted: the guideline, which is a guideline (and not not-a-guideline) itself quotes mos to define what the criterion for this particular case is; check the original. other cases exist, other possibilities, other !votes, other parts of other texts, other afds but my present !vote is based on that particular part and i did not quote splitlist here, did I? "still" is the key-word in the sentence that just follows the one from the guideline that i quote. implying that someone has "selectively decided to ignore" something is not exactly a great example of assuming good faith. mentioning that someone does something "again" at afd is also not completely necessary, especially as similar cases imply similar arguments. referring to arguments or outcomes in/of other afds can be helpful to help discussion progress if similar cases offered interesting elements, not to more or less explicitly cast a cloud on contributors with general but vague ad hominem remarks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Urdu 1: I think there is not need for a separate programming page when the contents can be easily merged back into channel page. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the suggestion to merge seems to make sense, if other users think size and navigation are not an issue, the page about the network being indeed short. But I think the organisation in similar categories (List(s) of programs broadcast by XXX) is very helpful and clear for the reader. For example List of programs broadcast by Hum TV was AfDed and redirected/merged back...and now it does not appear anymore under the category, so that the reader has been deprived of a simple and powerful tool that helps navigate clearly between networks, in my humble opinion. So unless we can leave the category on the page, a merge seems detrimental to navigation (Hence my !vote). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't keep lists without proper sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Urdu 1: Fails WP:NLIST and this is an unneeded CFORK. Much of the content in fact violates NOTTVGUIDE — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the redirect target? I know the sources on the page are poor but only did a brief WP:BEFORE.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I agree the sourcing on the target Urdu 1 is poor, but whether it meets WP:N is a separate issue. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FI, coverage on the subject of the list as set includes various paragraphs on the very programming of the network in: Sulehria, F. (2018). Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan. Taylor & Francis.; Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication: Continuity and Change, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, p. 207 (on the prominence of Turkish series in the programming of U1). Adding them to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost all entries have their separate Wikipedia pages.--Gul Butt (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You do know we require sourcing for all articles, right? Just because it has an article doesn't make it notable here without proper sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were told about WP:ATA a little over a week ago. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 30 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!} 06:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Whatley

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a quick search, I was unable to find any sources that had any WP:SIGCOV, although I did find a couple brief mentions. Also, article has no citations. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP for 16 years. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Carroll

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only mentions are in automated databases with name, age, games won/lost i.e. [16] and [17]. There's a single article with his name [18] that literally just says "A team won this award. The members where... [others names] and [his name]". This is a passing mention and WP:NINI from the award. Thus, no WP:SIGCOV meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:GNG. MolecularPilot 09:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that the "news" article is a WP:PRSOURCE and can't prove notability. also this "award" (if you can call it that) was only between 13 non professional teams with no coverage outside of WP:PRSOURCEs from the bar chain running it. Molecular Pilot 09:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. WP:SNOW. I don’t think there’s any other possible outcome to this, so, I’m being bold here. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Utuama

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, a scholar without a named chair, prestigious honors, or other apparent inclusion criteria.Pitille02 (talk) 05:08, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This is a ridiculous nomination. Passes WP:NPOL and I don’t need to explain that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This AFD is unwarranted. We should understand that deletion is not cleanup, and deletion should not be used as a substitute for improving article quality. The subject of this article meets the criteria in WP:NPOL as a fomer Deputy Governor of a state. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Passes WP:NPOL. He was Deputy Governor of Delta State. That's notability enough according to the criteria. Procyon117 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaar

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Looking at the listed films, I cannot see where he is mentioned on some and the others I do find him in are not supported by the sources used. A WP:BEFORE finds no significant coverage. There is also some FAKEREFerences used such as those for the awards. The one he apparently won does NOT show the award won, only lists his name as a nomination. CNMall41 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He is the lyricist of many songs and found some articles (reliable like Gaana, some aren't) [19] [20] [21]. Add citation needed to the award in question. DareshMohan (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference to support the award so a citation needed tag would not suffice. The other references are not reliable. The first is a redaction of what was posted on Instagram, the second is WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and the third is all quotes from the subject (it also shows a byline but posted by Odisha Diary Bureau which indicates it could be a paid placement - not assuming it is but not the strongest of sources). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 27 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!} 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:It is evident that the subject does not adhere to the WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria. From my research, only have some routine coverage and the majority of sources are not good enough. Furthermore, some of the few news stories available from internet have no bylines which means that they are mostly paid. 111.92.70.85 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have to support your claim? The sources found online contradict your statement. Could you please clarify your position?; — MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is surprising that the subject is noted as not passing WP:NMUSICIAN, as reliable sources can be found online to meet the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. However, the subject is more commonly known as "Kumaar" rather than the original name "Rakesh Kumar Pal," which might be causing difficulty in finding reliable sources. The subject has made significant contributions to mainstream Bollywood, including three Filmfare Award nominations (2017, 2019, and 2024) for lyricist work in the popular films Jawan, Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety, and Roy (film). Additionally, the subject has won awards at Zee Cine Awards 2024 and Mirchi Music Awards 2023, both of which are highly regarded platforms in India. Based on these accomplishments, a strong case can be made to retain the independent article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that winning an award under C7 does not guarantee notability. The guideline says someone "may be notable," indicating that they are likely to have significant coverage. The links you provided just shows the name and the award, no other context. So yes, the nominations and award can be verified, but there is no significant coverage of the person which is still a requirement. Note the specific wording of WP:NMUSICIAN - " and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed."

CNMall41 (talk), I agree with your mentioning of the wording from WP:NMUSICIAN. However, it's important to note that the phrasing does not justify deleting the article simply because "significant coverage" hasn't been found yet, as opposed to the availability of "reliable sources." Additionally, an article doesn't need to meet 100% of the criteria to qualify as a stand-alone entry. The focus should be on adding more sources that provide significant coverage, as the notability guidelines are still met.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we do not delete something in the absent of sources present on a page. However, if we have searched for sources an do not find significant coverage, then delete would be appropriate. There would be a difference between sources that exist but are not and the page and sources that do not exist. I have tried to find significant coverage and have been unable to locate.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I am providing references that demonstrate "significant coverage." While some of these sources may be questionable or weaker in terms of "reliability," they do fulfill the requirement for significant coverage. Please note, significant coverage means more than a brief mention, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the primary focus of the source material since the article already passes WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG.

"I’m the best caller tune writer" - Kumaar
Lyricist Kumaar to bring back 'Ishq Tera Tadpave'
मदर्स डे:'बेबी डॉल' के गीतकार कुमार ने भास्कर के लिए लिखीं खास पंक्तियां - मां संसार बनाती है, मां संस्कार बनाती है - Hindi language
Lyricist Kumaar calls 'Pathaan' a 'blockbuster' as he poses with Shah Rukh Khan, Deepika Padukone and John Abraham at special screening - See photos
Lyricist Kumaar celeberates birthday with friends and relatives
Lyricist Kumaar confesses about why writers are compelled to fight for their rights
Eveyone Ask Me Hook Line Kya Hai Says Lyricist Kumaar
Singer Mika Singh gifts lyricist Kumaar a diamond ring worth ₹18 Lakh – See pic
Kumaar Biography--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those. Here is my take as I already reviewed some of these in the WP:BEFORE.

Filmfare, not independent. This is an interview with the majority (if not all) information provided by the subject.

Radio and Music, falls under NEWSORGINDIA and not reliable. The clearest signs is the byline of "RnMTeam" instead of an actual writer; and, the article starting with the location which is where the news came from which is often based on a press release or information provided by the subject.

bhaskar.com, This may be lost in translation but what I got from this is it says he has written more than 100 songs for films. That is a statement of notability, but nothing much there other than that and the fact he wrote a song for Mother's Day. Could maybe be used for notability if there are some additional that can be pooled with.

ToI, reports on a statement he made about a film, but nothing significant "about" him. The article, which is also void of a byline, simply quotes what the subject wrote on Instagram.

Bollywood Hungama, reliable source, but it is simply a bunch of pics from his birthday party. No context and not significant. More of a tabloid piece.

Bollywood Bubble, I did not check the reliability of the publication, but assuming it is, the reference is still an interview and not independent.

Bollyy.com, Another non-bylined piece. Also a redacted interview. A few paragraphs with some quotes.

Business Upturn, cool story about being gifted a ring. Tabloid news and pretty much summarizes what the subject has on their Instagram page.

Veethi], a bio listing which is not something we can use for notability.

At this point I would think there is more coverage if the source above is correct about writing songs for over 100 films. I just don't see it unfortunately. Are there possible name variations you would suggest I search for? Based on the claim of notability, I would love to save the page but we need the sources to do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been unable to find sources that comprehensively list all of the subject's works, I am concluding my part of the discussion here. However, I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. It already meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. The inability to find a complete work history should not warrant deletion, as many articles would not meet this standard under similar circumstances. Deleting an article simply due to incomplete citations is not necessary when the subject's notability is already established by existing guidelines.

I encourage the author and other editors to focus on adding more reliable citations to strengthen the article and address the concerns raised by the nominating user. Expanding the list of references and ensuring accurate citations will not only enhance the article's credibility but also help in fulfilling the request for additional sources. Thank you for the discussion, and I hope further contributions will improve the article's quality and completeness. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanished (2005 film)

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

This article was PROD'd and de-PROD'd because no deletion rationale was provided. So, I thought I'd send this to AFD because it doesn't look like it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability for a film. It's been around for many years and I went through the page history, looking for a better version of the article but it doesn't exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only current "references" are the offical website, and can't find any other sources referring to it (the 2005 film) besides mirror sites and user-generated content like IMDB. WP:NFILM mainly defers to WP:GNG and I can't find a single reference to the film that's significant, reliable or independent. Molecular Pilot 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Timeline of Opportunity#Endurance crater. czar 03:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (crater)

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

Following the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturaliste (crater) and Sleepy Hollow (Mars), this is not a notable impact feature. The crater is only 8 metres in diameter. According to estimates Mars has over 90 million craters that have over double the diameter of this crater (see [22]), which probably puts the number of craters of this size in the hundreds of millions. There doesn't appear to be much interesting to be said about this crater either. I propose the article be redirect to either Opportunity (rover) or Timeline of Opportunity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of Opportunity#Endurance crater cause there's a picture and mention of it in that section as it was discovered 4 days afterward the Endurance investigation missions (and the article is written chronologically). Can't find any indication of WP:SIGCOV in my search, only things are this article, an identical picture with identical description hosted on both the JPL, NASA and "the planetary society" websites, among other images with minimal descriptions across other image hosting websites - seems very WP:MILL per nom, no indication that it is has special significance beyond all those craters, of which many probably have images taken by the rover. Molecular Pilot 03:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endurance crater, as there's a photo of the Fram crater in that section. Nothing really notable otherwise, and there's less than 10 results in the news tab when searching it up (via find sources). Most other results are just photos. Procyon117 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's Records

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

Fails NCORP, notability concerns for over a decade, no references easily found on internet search Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was for some time the biggest independent record shop chain in the UK, a £30 million business with at one time 36 branches, and winning several industry awards. Coverage includes 'A love letter to Andy's Records where 90s kids in Cambridge spent far too much money', 'Andy's Records shops to close' and the British Newspaper Archive has several more articles about the company: 'Top Award for Andy's Records', Andy's Records Set to Break Into Brid', 'A Fourth Major Award For Andy's Records', 'Just for the Record, the Rest Is History: From Humble Market Stall to £30m Business, Andy's Is 30', 'Third retailing award for Andy's Records'. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by @Michig, to which I would add that Graham Jones, Whatever Happened to Record Stores (2009) at 285 includes at least a paragraph on the founding of the article subject (but I'm not logged in to archive.org, and can't check if the text runs over onto other pages). Oblivy (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to withdraw following Michig's findings. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the sources provided by Michig and believe the article should be kept. Since the nominator has also withdrawn, it’s clear the article will remain. Baqi:) (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila) with the history preserved, should further information need merging. Star Mississippi 22:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talaba station

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

I somewhat follow the ongoing construction of the LRT Line 1 extension and was surprised that Manuyo Uno and Talaba have their own articles. As far as I can research online, these two stations might have originally been proposed to be part of the extension, but now that constuction is in full swing and Phase One of is expected to start operating before the end of 2024, there are no mentions of Manuyo Uno and Talaba as future stations. See this June 2024 Manila Bulletin article for an example. I think prematurely creating these two articles is basically sort of like WP:CRYSTAL, and if they are indeed to be added in the future, then it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I discussed this at the Philippines WikiProject/noticeboard and there no disagreement that having these two articles is premature and should probably be deleted or moved to Draft space. —seav (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nomination notes: If you look at both articles, they only have one and the same reference and it is an archived URL whose text does not even mention either station, and which can only be seen in a small low-resolution map. I tried to look for other sources and basically what I can find are wiki farms and Wikipedia forks. —seav (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For formality I am also nominating the following related pages with the reasoning stated above: Manuyo Uno station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —seav (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. —seav (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the line. If these were proposed to be part of the line then that is something that should be covered as part of the line's article, they can be split out again later if there are sufficient sources but this is unlikely (although not impossible) if they are not actually being built. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done a full analysis, but the texts of both articles are more or less already within LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila). Merging is fine, though the action would effectively be just redirection at this point. —seav (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila), there is nothing to merge. It is mentioned once on the target article, although this could be improved. CMD (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 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.